Yeah you're completely right but let me rephrase your point.  The ou=syntaxes branch under every schema defined under ou=schema is inconsistently named according to the protocol.  The protocol uses ldapSyntaxes as the attributeType identifier within the schema subentry to represent syntaxes.  We in the schema partition used "syntaxes" instead but do comply with the protocol to use ldapSyntaxes within the schema subentry.

So yes this is a bit inconsistent with the protocol but in my defense I think everything under ou=schema is inconsistent with the protocol since LDAP does not support such a structure although it should.  While doing this I think I forgot that ldapSyntaxes was used in the schema subentry or I thought it was redundant that ldap was prefixed since it's obvious that this syntax is for LDAP in the first place.

Alex

On 4/2/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

I'm just wondering if the "syntaxes" attribute type is not simply useless ? There is a LdapSyntaxes which is correct, my guess would be that "syntaxes" is just another name for "LdapSyntaxes".

I know I just need a couple of cofefe to recover some intelligence, but even through my half-sleeping brain, I think there is a little problem here.

wdyt ?

--
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com