On Feb 27, 2006, at 12:04 PM, James M Snell wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceFixSecurityConsiderations
+1
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceBasicAuthentication
-1, the other's better.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceFixMediaCollections
+1
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEditLinkRelation
Discussed separately
Other
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceAssumeNoBaseUri
+1 Strongly, we really need this one since it's already been
demonstrated to be a source of confusion.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCategoryListing2
+0, although I'd be interested in seeing if this could be done with
without introducing new elements, couldn't you just happen to have a
collection all of whose entries are atom:categories?
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceKeepOrCreateNewAtomId
-1. Not necessary. Anyone who ships a feed that contains entries
with non-unique IDs is breaking the rules. There is no basis in the
spec for a client assuming that a server will use the client-provided
atom:id. Or not.
-Tim
