+1
It is absurd to open the Pandora's box of creating
a new slack atom to work around the requirements
of atomFormat when it is so much cleaner and
easier to just use valid atom!
- Luke
On 11/1/05, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [[ the wiki wouldn't let me post this--"406 Not Acceptable"... ]]
>
> == Abstract ==
>
> Adjust Atom entries in examples so they are valid.
>
> == Rationale ==
>
> The spec should document the happy path. All examples should be valid
> Atom. Trying to prognosticate the varieties of invalid Atom
> implementors will see is foolish. Even if we do specify a separate
> schema, there will be POSTed content received that does not meet it.
> It's probably possible to create a new entry from this:
> {{{<entry/>}}}.
>
> == Proposal ==
>
> Adjust example in draft-06 as follows:
>
> {{{
> POST /edit HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.org
> User-Agent: Thingio/1.0
> Content-Type: application/atom+xml
> Content-Length: nnn
>
> <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";>
> <title>Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok</title>
> <author>
> <name>J.Q. Person, Esq.</name>
> </author>
> <id>urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a</id>
> <updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
> <content>Some text.</content>
> </entry>
> }}}
>
> == Notes ==
>
>
