-1. The current spec is fine as is. It currently does not say anything about whether or not the post entry MUST be valid although that is, indeed the spirit of the spec. The spec does not say that servers MUST reject entries that are not valid. Servers are free to accept or reject entries as they see fit. No change is necessary.
- James Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: > 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 > >
