Andreas Sewe wrote:
Well, I don't really consider myself a WG-member, but here are my
comments:
In general I am +0 only, since I agree with Mark Baker's critique;
requiring an Atom Entry response body after a POST is too
prescriptive.
To elaborate I little bit more on this, suppose a web page uses one of
those AJAX-thingies to POST a new Atom entry:
POST /myblog/entries HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
User-Agent: Webbrowser/1.0
Accept: application/xhtml+xml
Content-Type: application/atom+xml
Content-Length: nnn
<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";>
<title>Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok</title>
<id>urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a</id>
<updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
<content>Some text.</content>
</entry>
Since the user-agent performing the POST is a web browser which has
clearly indicated that it prefers an XHTML response, I don't see why
PaceMediaEntries5 wants to outlaw the following response
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:17:11 GMT
Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
Content-Length: nnn
Location: http://example.org/myblog/entries/1.atom
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>Your post has been created</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>Your post has been created: <a href="http://example.org/
myblog/entries/1.atom">Atom-Powered Robots Run Amok</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>
This seems like a perfectly legitimate use case to me; I second Mark
Baker's complaint.
With kind regards,
Andreas Sewe
