- From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:41:35 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Should we recommend that a PROPFIND always return the same (canonical) segment from a given list of equivalent segments? Clients may be confused if a random choice from "ab", "Ab", "aB", and "AB" for a given set of sequential PROPFIND requests, such as assume that things are changing when they may in fact not have changed at all. -wsv On Feb 20, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: >> OK, how about the following: (version 3, I believe :-) >> Although commonly a mapping consists of a single segment and a >> resource, >> in general, a mapping consists of a set of segments and a resource. >> This allows a server to treat a set of segments as equivalent >> (i.e. either all of the segments are mapped to the same resource, >> or none of the segments are mapped to a resource). >> For example, a server that performs case-folding on segments >> will treat the segments "ab", "Ab", "aB", and "AB" as equivalent, >> A client can then use any of these segments to identify the >> resource. >> Note that a PROPFIND result will select one of these equivalent >> segments to identify the mapping, so there will be one PROPFIND >> response element per mapping, not one per segment in the mapping. >> Cheers, >> Geoff > > Perfect. > > Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 23:42:06 UTC