Eric Scheid wrote: > On 31/10/05 4:59 PM, "Joe Gregorio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Section 9: """Clients SHOULD be constructed with this in mind and >>SHOULD perform a GET on the member resource before editing.""" > > > editorial: move this requirement to the section discussing editing, not > listing?
Noted for 07. The editors will try it out and see how it reads. >>Adding a single header is not encouraging """a bunch >> of implementation specific metadata being >> passed around in the HTTP headers""" >> > > > but it does set a precedent, which is I think what James was suggesting. Opinion: if we're going to use entries as general purpose metadata containers (mnot's phrase not mine), we might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and use them for carrying everything. It's clean from a layering perspective. At the same time I don't see Title as setting a precedent - I'm betting impl specific junk will end up in entities not HTTP - the world's mostly not ready to treat HTTP headers as non-wire data just yet. SOAP and XML-RPC are presented in evidence. cheers Bill
