Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In section 9, last sentence of the first paragraph: > “Clients SHOULD be constructed with this in mind and SHOULD perform a > GET on the member resource before editing.” > > Shouldn't the first “SHOULD” be a “should” and the second a “MAY” or > even “may” (or “might”)?
You don't need RFC2119 language to describe how something works. "Each member entry is represented by an atom:entry element, but those entries are not an editable representation of the entry. To retrieve the source representation of the entry, clients send a GET request to the URI found in each entry's pub:edit element (see Section 4.3.1)." --PaceFeedsNotCollections Speaking of which, is there a reason that Pace hasn't been added to the issues list? Is there something I need to change? I'm happy to. Tim/Paul/Sam? Robert Sayre
