It wouldn't surprise me. Can you show us a "bad, DocsList" and "good, WorksheetFeed" URL? We can at least compare these to their documentation and find which one is amiss.
Voting for http://code.google.com/a/google.com/p/apps-api-issues/issues/detail?id=2516&can=4&q=label%3AAPI-Spreadsheets&colspec=API%20ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Stars%20Opened%20Summary might at least help you to feel better. If you wanted to make an issue along the lines of "hey Google, we chumps need better information about release versions", I'd vote for it. http://code.google.com/a/google.com/p/apps-api-issues/issues/entry?labels=Type-Defect,Priority-Medium,API-Spreadsheets cheers, David. On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope this is the right forum to report this. > Two weeks ago my application for creating spreadsheets using the Doc List > and Spreadsheet APIs was working correctly. This is the general flow of my > application: > 1) Authenticate to "writely" and create a spreadsheet > 2) Parse the the response I receive and look for the link containing the > rel, 'http://schemas.google.com/spreadsheets/2006#worksheetsfeed', so I > can get the href to the worksheets feed. > 3) Authenticate as needed to "wise" and begin to add/modify worksheets > based on the response received in step 2. > > According to the documentation, upon creating a spreadsheet, the response > is an atom entry containing information about the newly-created spreadsheet. > This was exactly how it was some two weeks ago and everything was working. > Now, however, if I make a request using the href I get in step 2, I get a > "404 not found". The strange thing is that when I inspect the response I get > from a full spreadsheet feed for all my spreadsheets, the worksheet feed > href for the just-created document is different from the one I get in step > 2. And when I use it, it's valid. This doesn't solve my problem as I do not > wish to get a full feed just so I can add worksheets to a spreadsheet I just > created. Has the protocol changed in anyway? >
