Mark Nottingham wrote:
Sorry, this got lost in my inbox...
I think they do, although the draft is silent on it. This is one of
those areas where it would have been really nice if the WG had agreed to
take on FH as part of the core, rather than extension; there are lots of
little ambiguities like this as a result.
I doubt that would clear things up. This is a HTTP thing, not an Atom
thing. My thinking on this matter is that Atom feeds aren't resources,
they're representations. Specifically they're a hack/optimisation to
deal model collections/iterators for HTTP. Anyone who really cares
should try sending Atom over XMPP or email; it'll be clear enough that
entrys matter, but feeds don't.
[An RDF modelling execise by the WG would have made it clear that feeds
are problematic entities, but we'd probably be going into last call
sometime the new year as a result.]
cheers
Bill
