On 6/13/06, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, ok. If we're talking about feeds, let's say that plainly: "Note that this specification covers the cases when the POST body is an Atom Entry, and when it is of a non-Atom media type. It does not specify any request semantics or server behavior in the case where the POST media-type is application/atom+xml but the body is an Atom Feed document." It's an annoyance we can't use standard codes like 406 to cater for this (spec in an atom entry media type as per Rob makes sense). I guess that's no reason to hold things up.
The proposal creates this problem because it's totally out in the weeds with Accept syntax. 99% of intropspection files will accept one or both of "entry" and "*/*". Your suggestion is a decent way to fix the spec coherence issue, but the bigger problem is that the group has divergent use cases that all want to be called "Atom Publishing Protocol", so we have this interesting list of media types and other things that purports to solve a problem. Most clients will send whatever they want (maybe they can grey-out some menus based on media type), and will use the same screen and handler for every error code. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
