Re: Possible problem in collection definition

That's nearly what I had in mind, but I wonder if case-folding is the  
only acceptable way for servers to have multiple URLs for the same  
resources and only advertise one of them.  What about a server that  
automatically finds a "foo.html" file when clients ask for "foo.htm"?

Lisa

On Feb 18, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>
> I think the following addition would solve the problem.  Following
> the paragraph quoted below, add the paragraph:
>
>   An exception to this rule occurs if the server performs "case- 
> folding"
>   on the URL segments, e.g. considers the segment "AB" to be  
> equivalent
>   to the segements "Ab", "aB", and "ab".  In this case, A MUST contain
>   a mapping to B from one of the segments that are equivalent to  
> "SEGMENT".
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
> w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 02/17/2006 01:29:23 AM:
> >
> > Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > >
> > >  From bug 227 <http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/ 
> show_bug.cgi?id=227>:
> > >
> > >     For all WebDAV compliant resources A and B, identified by  
> URLs "U"
> > >     and "V" respectively, such that "V" is equal to "U/ 
> SEGMENT", A MUST
> > >     be a collection that contains a mapping from "SEGMENT" to  
> B. So, if
> > >     resource B with URL "http://example.com/bar/blah" is WebDAV  
> compliant
> > >     and if resource A with URL "http://example.com/bar/" is WebDAV
> > >     compliant, then resource A must be a collection and must  
> contain a
> > >     mapping from "blah" to B.
> > >
> > > and an example from just after:
> > >
> > >     An example for this case are servers that support multiple  
> alias URLs
> > >     for each WebDAV compliant resource.  For instance, a server  
> may
> > >     implement case-insensitive URLs, thus "/col/a" and "/col/A"  
> identify
> > >     the same resource, yet only either "a" or "A" are reported  
> upon
> > >     listing the members of "/col".
> > >
> > > This example may be inconsistent with the requirement just  
> stated.  We
> > > can argue that '/col/a' maps to a WebDAV compliant resource and  
> "/col"
> > > maps to a WebDAV collection, thus "/col" MUST have a mapping  
> from "a" to
> > > the child resource.  We can argue the same for "/col/A".    
> Following
> > > that logic could make URL-case-insensitive servers rather  
> difficult ...
> >
> > Correct. Note however that this is also a problem with the original
> > definition.
> >
> > > It may *not* be inconsistent if we claim that "/col/a" and "/ 
> col/A" are
> > > the same URL. It also may not be inconsistent if we say that  
> resource B
> > > is identified by one of "/col/a" or "/col/A" but not the other,  
> but that
> > > wouldn't be the meaning of "identified by" that I'd expect.
> >
> > But they aren't the same URL. And even if they would, are "/col/ 
> a." and
> > "/col/a" the same URL? Or "/col/%20a"? All of these map to the same
> > resource on IIS.
> >
> > > Not proposing what to do about this just yet.
> >
> > We need to relax the language such that the server is allowed to
> > suppress alias URLs. Let's just note this problem right now and  
> fix it
> > during WGLC.
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> >