Re: LDAPprep: mapping of " " values

[John McMeeking <jmcmeek@us.ibm.com>]

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> wrote on 11/18/2004 09:15:52 AM:

> At 10:44 PM 11/17/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> >I need to read up on X.520, but:  The behaviour which seems most
> >consistent with the current ldapbis documents seems to me to be:
> >
> >- "foo * bar" does not match "foo bar" - the two spaces in the
> >  substrings do not match _disjoint_ portions of "foo bar".
> >  Nor does it match "foo  bar", which is equivalent to "foo bar".
>
> My view is that (l=foo * bar) since "foo X bar" without
> consuming any portion of X, it should match "foo  bar"
> (which passes your disjoint concern), and since "foo bar"
> is equivalent, that too.

I don't see how (l=foo * bar) can match "foo bar" (single space).  Doesn't
that require that the trailing and leading spaces in the filter substring
match the same character?  The * is supposed to match zero or more
characters between two substrings, not allow the substrings to overlap.

I'd also argue that (l=foo * bar) does NOT match "foo  bar" because "foo
bar" is equivalent to "foo bar".  I know it seems like it ought to match,
and I wouldn't complain if it did match, but I think it is reasonable to
say that for matching purposes, the server compares filter substrings to
the equivalent prepared string (according to the matching rule) "foo bar",
which (l=foo * bar) does not match (or so I believe).  I think that would
be far easier to describe than, and has a consistency that I find lacking
in, these examples where sometimes a given space is insignificant, and
sometimes the same space in the same string (entry value or filter
substring) is significant.

>
> Kurt
>

John McMeeking