On 6/14/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 8, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> -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.
You're entitled to dislike the MUST here, but the appeal to Web
Architecture is unfounded. The proposal stipulates that IF you
return a body to the post, then it has to be an Atom Entry. If a
server were to return the Atom Entry with the wrong media type, or
return something else with the Atom media type, that would be an
architectural sin.
That isn't clear from the text. It just says "it SHOULD also return a
response body, which, if provided, MUST be an Atom Entry Document
representing the newly-created resource", and says nothing about the
media type for that response body. As I say, the current text
licenses the client to assume a media type.
There is a substantial body of opinion on the WG that having a MUST
here would be a plus to interoperability; I'm not going to rehash
those arguments. If that opinion gains enough critical mass to fall
within the IETF definition of "consensus", then a MUST is entirely
appropriate.
If, as you say, the media type needs to be checked, I see no
degredation in interop by saying SHOULD, but good extensibility
advantages.
P.S. congrats on the bambino, and kudos for continuing to chair.
Mark.
