|
I should have been more specific in my questions:
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 2/15/05 10:48:06 AM >>> >At 08:34 AM 2/15/2005, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >>Two questions: >> >>1) In [Models], MatchingRuleUseDescription.APPLIES says: "provides a list of attribute types the matching rule applies to". Does this include or exclude subtypes? >If a matching rule is applicable to a type X, then it should also be >applicable to Y if Y is a subtype of X. Hence, both X and Y should >be listed as the rule is applicable to both (assuming the use is >above and beyond those in of the attribute types' definitions). Ok, but let's assume that X is listed, but Y isn't. Because Y is a subtype of X, is it implied that the matching rule also applies to Y?
>>2) In [Protocol], SearchRequest.filter.extensibleMatch says: "If the type field is absent and the matchingRule is present, the matchValue is compared against all attributes in an entry which support that matchingRule.". Does this mean "as determined by any matchingRuleUse for that mathing rule",
>>or "as determined by any matchingRuleUse, or the EQUALITY, ORDERING, or SUBSTR rules of the attribute"? > >"which support that matching rule" means "which the matching rule >may be applied to". > >Note that matchingRuleUse lists attribute types which the rule >applies to above and beyond those uses indicated in attribute >type definitions. caseIgnoreMatch applies to CN even those >matchingRuleUse not list CN in the APPLIES of caseIgnoreMatch. > >So, what matters here is not what is listed in matchingRuleUse, >but whether the rule applies to the type. Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see the answer. In your first paragraph, it looks like you believe that the matching rule is applied to any attribute which lists the matching rule in its attribute type definition, _as well as_ any attribute which is listed in a matchingRuleUse for that matching rule. But the second paragraph indicates that matchingRuleUse is not even considered.
>>Whatever the answers are to these, I don't find it obvious by reading the text. > >Do you have a specific suggestion on how to improve the text? Maybe, once I understand what the semantics are. My initial assumptions led me to believe:
For #1: "...provides a list of attribute types (and/or attribute supertypes of attribute types) to which the matching rule applies"
For #2: "...which support that matchingRule. This includes attributes types which specify the matchingRule, as well as attribute types listed in the matchingRuleUse for the matching rule."
Jim |