- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:11:31 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
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