On 10/15/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <thinking-out-loud-mode>It does seem painfully obvious, based on the > language in the atom-format draft, that the protocol must include > *some* way to indicate whether an update is significant or not. The > mechanics don't seem that interesting.</thinking-out-loud-mode>
I fully disagree. When I wrote and edited PaceDateUpdated, it was to remove language that makes people think of this misfeature. For a diff, see section 4.2.12 of: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/atompub/draft-ietf-atompub-format/draft-ietf-atompub-format-04-from-03.diff.html If there's a PUT with something in the body, expect it to be there on a subsequent GET. If there's a piece of information you don't want to appear in the body on subsequent GET requests, put it in the headers. This is how HTTP works, AFAIK. I'm not too psyched about the WG breaking the definition of PUT. Robert Sayre
