On Oct 15, 2005, at 6:24 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
When you POST/PUT an atom:entry in the APP context, it is
plausible to
think that we could specify things in such a way that that atom:entry
is not in fact conformant to all the rules of atom-format; i.e. it's
an atom:entry but it's not an Atom Entry Document.
Agreed, this is a big issue that does need to be discussed. It may
make
parts of the protocol easier to implement if we don't require valid
Entries on POSTing. One example is leaving off the atom:id
Hmm, in fact it seems positively perverse to require clients to
generate atom:id values with Atom's stringent uniqueness constraints,
when servers are typically better qualified to do this. So I would
expect it would be a very common pattern for the initial entry POST
to omit atom:id, which I think means it's not an Atom Entry Document.
Or am I missing something? -Tim
