> Pierangelo, > > I appreciate your taking the time to answer this. > > I was careful in my original mail not to be complaining that the > behavior had changed. I was just asking for the clarification of what > behavior I should expect now and in future, wrt the case I ran into. > You've provided that, at least in part.
As a workaround to the case sensitive matching issue, one could use case insensitive matching (ber_bvstrcasecmp() instead of bvmatch()); maybe an "icase" style could be of help; all in all, I think sets are still considered experimental ;) > I'd guess that in response to your other points, enhancement suggestions > such as syntax for defining matching rules seem like just that > (enhancement suggestions), but documentation of what sets do _now_ would > still be welcome. I'd rewrite your statement to say, users of sets > should be prepared to understand and accept the behavior of the > implementation as it is--but this discussion on normalization etc might > be something for faq-o-matic? I looked at the FAQ and it appears that most of the examples are now inaccurate or wrong, as they make an incorrect use of uppercase. That has to be fixed, I concur. I'll update those as soon as possible. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati Responsabile Open Solution OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.n.c. Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ------------------------------------------ Office: +39.02.23998309 Mobile: +39.333.4963172 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------