On 2/11/05 6:36 AM, "Joe Gregorio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Looking at it again, I'm actually not certain more language is >> necessary. We already have "The app:member-type element value specifies >> the types of members that can appear in the collection"... I would think >> that, with the subsequent definitions of the "entry" and "media" values >> are enough explanation. I don't see any reason to have this particular >> MUST. > > MAY/MUST/SHOULD a server accept a POSTed representation > that meets the constraints in the app:member-type element? > > This is a question that the spec as worded today addresses. > If we drop the MUST as you suggest then the spec becomes vague. > How do you suggest we resolve that ambiguity? similarly, the wording "The app:member-type element value specifies the types of members that can appear in the collection" does not specify that other types of members MAY/SHOULD/MUST NOT not appear, right? That is, if a collection has an app:member-type="foo", then that wording only says that you might find "foo" entries there. It doesn't say you won't find "bar" entries. e.
