Tim Bray wrote: > > On Nov 22, 2006, at 3:11 AM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: > >> Say I POST an atom:entry to a collection URI, this entry does not have >> an atom:author > > If I were implementing the server, in this scenario I'd reject the post > with an error message. It's hard for me to see a scenario where the > author info isn't already known and not providing it is still OK. (In > fact, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the author info > isn't already known, period.) -Tim
Right. If we stretch this idea a little then, how would people feel about stating in the draft that the server MAY (SHOULD?) reject an Atom entry which would be invalid as per RFC 4287 ? I think at least a MAY would give some weigh to implementors who wish to be really strict regarding the input the allow. - Sylvain
