|
>>>> Mark Wahl <Mark.Wahl@sun.com> 9/18/00 5:20:21 PM
>>>
>> Is that correct? If so, I believe the following assumption is also correct: >> Any value held in an attribute with more than one language option (i.e. the >> example above) does NOT exist in the attribute with a subset of those >> language options. In other words, the example above does NOT imply that >> there are values like: >> cn;lang-en-US: JoeBob >> cn;lang-ja: JoeBob >> Right? > >Those are different values. You could have them there as well, if you wished. I worded that poorly. What I meant to say, is that given the
entry:
dn: cn=JoeBob,o=myorg
cn:lang-en-US: Joe
cn;lang-ja: Bob
cn;lang-en-US;lang-ja: JoeBob
The search filter (cn;lang-en = JoeBob) will NOT match. This is due to the
fact that as stated in RFC 2251, "An AttributeDescription with one or more
options is treated as a subtype of the attribute type without any
options".
This statement tells me that
cn:lang-en-US is a direct subtype of cn
cn;lang-ja is a direct subtype of cn
cn;lang-en-US;lang-ja is a direct subtype of cn.
Yes, I'm reading "direct" into the 2251 statement. David has argued
that:
cn;lang-en-US;lang-ja is a direct subtype of cn;lang-en-US, which in turn
is a direct subtype of cn. Does this also mean that it's also a subtype of
cn;lang-ja, or is it strictly a right to left thing? If r to l, then the
attribute type option ordering restriction will get in people's
way. Jim |