-1 because of the "MUST" for an Atom response to the POST request.
In addition to violating Web architecture (sorry, Tim! 8-) by licensing APP clients to ignore the authoritative Content-Type header, MUST is normally reserved for use when interoperability depends on it, and that isn't the case here AFAICT. I just can't see a good justification for profiling HTTP in this way. It severely restricts extensibility, possibilities for interfacing with existing agents (e.g. HTML responses), and certainly other scenarios that don't come immediately to mind. IIRC, James Snell at one point said he'd be ok with "SHOULD", as would I (though I think MAY is adequate). Other than that, I like the pace very much. Mark. On 6/8/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<co-chair-mode> Here's the latest: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMediaEntries5 WG members are invited to express their approval, or lack thereof, for the record, by next Monday June 12th. The co-chairs will do a consensus call based on the results and we'll get a protocol-09 draft which with any luck will be the one we send out for IETF last call. </co-chair-mode> -Tim
