On 6/11/05 1:47 PM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> In section 9, last sentence of the first paragraph: ³Clients SHOULD be >>>> constructed with this in mind and SHOULD perform a GET on the member >>>> resource before editing.² >>>> >>> "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 >>> >> Nice wording, but that only addresses the incompleteness problem, it does not >> address the clashing users problem. >> > Hmm, I don't know what the clashing users problem is. Could you enlighten me? > You retrieve an entry, edit it, PUT it back, retain a copy. Later, you edit the entry again, and go to PUT it back... but in between those two edits someone else has edited the entry. Thus, "SHOULD perform a GET on the member resource before editing" e.
