RE: WG last call on "duplicate entries"

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 09:48 AM 3/27/01 +0100, Dave Watts wrote:
>Kurt, Jim,
>
>"Both" is a fine answer, but I'm not sure Kurt's suggested minor editorial
>change clarifies things explicitly enough. We could add something like the
>following to 4.1.1 (or made into a 4th example in section 5).
>
>...
>
>For the purposes of determining multi-valuedness, values of subtypes are
>treated as if they were values of the supplied attribute.  eg 'cn;lang-en'
>is a subtype of 'cn' is a subtype of 'name', so an entry with
>  cn: Johann
>  cn;lang-en: John
>is considered to have two values of 'name'.

That's not how I believe it should be viewed.

If you dupliate 'name' and you have:
        cn: Johann Smith
        cn: John Smith
        sn: Smith

You should get back two entries, one with
        cn: Johann Smith
        sn: Smith

and one with
        cn: John Smith
        sn: Smith

that is, requesting duplication of 'name' implies requesting
duplication of 'name' and its subtypes.