Re: Net::LDAP::LDIF -> Case insensitive attribute names

[Kurt D. Z. <Ku...@Op...>]

At 09:01 AM 5/3/01, Chris Ridd wrote:
>"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Ku...@Op...> wrote:
>> At 02:39 AM 5/3/01, Chris Ridd wrote:
>>> I *suspect* you are meant to ignore any options on the add/delete/replace
>>> line. Anyone else?
>> 
>> Actually for any:
>> 
>> add: FOO
>> BAR: xxxx
>> 
>> 
>> FOO should be equivalent to BAR.
>
>What do you mean by "equivalent" - 

I mean that they refer to same attribute type and have the same
set of options.  Most LDIF implementations however only consider
attribute descriptions which differ by case alone as being equivalent.
However, one could allow:
        - alternative attribute type names
          CN vs 2.5.4.3
        - differing option order

For example, the following are equivalent:
        2.5.4.3;lang-en;binary
        CN;binary;lang-en

I note that the latter is the proper form as NAMEs are preferred
over OIDs and options should be presented in ascending order.

>BAR must be a subtype of FOO?

No! That would make FOO and BAR non-equivalent types and hence
non-equivalent attribute descriptions.