I was agreeing with the idea that a client MAY go and get the entry before editing instead of SHOULD. The reason being getting the entry doesn't deal with lost updates, which is what Eric seems to be concerned about, looking at his recent posts. At best a GET makes it statistically less likely to lose data, at worst it leads people into a false sense of security that doing this actually protects data. If you want to see how to solve that problem in a web context, look at how Subversion uses WebDAV.
I see this below: '"Clients MAY be constructed with this in mind and MAY perform a GET on the member resource before editing."' That's not text I've said or proposed. cheers Bill James M Snell wrote: > > +1, Robert's wordsmithing for this is better (aside from the mention of > pub:edit anyway) > > Robert Sayre wrote: > >> Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>> >>> Thomas Broyer wrote: >>> >>>> 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”)? >>> >>> >>> +1 to MAY. Generally we won't use 'should' unless it's a spec. >> >> >> >> "Clients MAY be constructed with this in mind and MAY perform a GET on >> the member resource before editing." >> >> ?????????? >> >> Write it the way I've described in my other email, and you'll have it >> described clearly. It's generally a bad idea to use the word "this" >> without a noun after it. >> >> Robert Sayre >> >> >> >> > >
