Joe Gregorio wrote:
On 10/15/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, there's a big issue here that we've never discussed. 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. Maybe surprising,
but not impossible.
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 means that
the server can supply it while putting it in means that the client wishes
to supply it. This arises if you are using the APP to migrate
your weblog from one system to another and you are trying to be a good
citizen and you don't want your atom:id's to change.
Couldn't we have a "special atom:id" telling the server to generate an
atom:id?
<atom:entry xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";>
<atom:title>Server please provide your own atom:id</atom:title>
<atom:id>http://tools.ietf.org/wg/atompub/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol/</atom:id>
…
--
Thomas Broyer
