On 6/14/06, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggest a new subsection of whatever Section 8 ends up being > numbered as > > x.y Updating and Deleting Entries. Agreed, a new section is definitely called for but you've only answered the question for atom:id. If you remember we used to have a table in the spec up until -06 which spelled all of this out:
The table had *terrible* interop. Implementors basically ignored it, it seemed to me. I wouldn't care what the table said if I had a good reason to do something different. Would you? Tim Bray wrote:
I.e. in the first case, we're saying "Client: don't do this." In the second "Server: if the client stupidly requests this, ignore it."
NO. -1. Do not design requirements for servers you know nothing about. Servers: send an error if a client sends a request you can't deal with. Do not silently "correct" the request. This is how HTTP works, it's a normative reference, don't rewrite some busted version in Atom Protocol. OK? -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
