On 11/5/05, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In section 9, last sentence of the first paragraph: > > "Clients SHOULD be constructed with this in mind and SHOULD perform a > > GET on the member resource before editing." > > > > Shouldn't the first "SHOULD" be a "should" and the second a "MAY" or > > even "may" (or "might")? > > You don't need RFC2119 language to describe how something works. > > "Each member entry is represented by an atom:entry element, but those entries > are not an editable representation of the entry. To retrieve the source > representation of the entry, clients send a GET request to the URI found in > each > entry's pub:edit element (see Section 4.3.1)." --PaceFeedsNotCollections > > Speaking of which, is there a reason that Pace hasn't been added to the issues > list? Is there something I need to change? I'm happy to. Tim/Paul/Sam? >
Rob's wording is far clearer to me. I prefer edit link to pub:edit but the interaction is *way* clearer. - Luke
