Subject: Re: Possible problem in collection definition

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 13:49:04 -0500

On Sunday, 02/19/2006 at 09:29 PST, Lisa Dusseault 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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"?

I think Jullian also mentioned an additional situation where there is 
aliasing.

OTOH, Geoffrey only used case-folding as an example.  Would you 
suggest that he include addtional examples?  Or is one example enough?

> >   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".

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:07:00 -0800

I suggest we use normative language to be clear what the requirements  
are and use examples as illustrations.  Geoff's text nearly does  
this, but it's not entirely clear (perhaps it would be in a larger  
context) whether the requirements forbid this "feature" always except  
case-folding, or whether the requirements allow this feature always.

Lisa

On Feb 19, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Jason Crawford wrote:

> > 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
> I think Jullian also mentioned an additional situation where there  
> is aliasing.
>
> > >   An exception to this rule occurs if the server performs "case- 
> folding"
> > >   a mapping to B from one of the segments that are equivalent  
> to "SEGMENT".