>> Invalid Atom / atom:id handling >> * http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMagicId (arno) > > Rejected. There is consensus that clients SHOULD submit valid Atom > entries, and we do not specify any server behaviors with respect to > handling of atom:id values. > (see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02739.html) > (see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02829.html)
I understood "servers can choose to accept/reject whatever they want" in those posts to mean that servers could accept/reject the entry. <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02852.html> This isn't the same as "not specify any server behaviours with respect to handling of atom:id values" - which would allow servers to change the id on the server side. James's rewrite of Luke's proposed consensus, quoted in the message at <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02829.html> seems to back that up. It seems unreasonable to ban servers from changing ids, but equally, other applications rely on the id not changing. I'll try and write a Pace on using collection metadata to indicate the semantics of POST. -- Dave
