Re: Possible problem in collection definition

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
>>>   Should we recommend that a PROPFIND always return the same 
>>> (canonical) segment from a given list of equivalent segments?
>> If a server doesn't do that, UIs will behave in a *very* surprising 
>> when a collection view is refreshed.
>> Thus, I'd say, yes they SHOULD.
> MUST, even.

Nope. I don't think that would make sense. Servers will return 
consistent names if they can (and we tell them they SHOULD). Servers 
won't if they can't. A "MUST" won't change that.

> Are such segment mappings considered harmful enough to recommend that 
> servers SHOULD NOT have equivalence sets of segments?  (But that if they 
> do, here's how they MUST do it, of course)

Why would that be harmful?

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 00:12:34 UTC