I can live with "SHOULD" on a response body being returned. But why
MUST it be an Atom entry? When you were trying to force a return of
the (possibly modified) requested entry on the response, that made
some sense since the request was an Atom entry. But without that it
just seems to limit extensibility for no good reason, AFAICT... as
I've described before.
To be good HTTP clients, they should be checking the Content-Type
header anyway, right? You wouldn't want them assuming it was
application/atom+xml just because a non-HTTP spec said so.
So I could live with "SHOULD be an Atom entry".
Cheers,
Mark.
On 5/7/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I've been going back through all of the discussion on the topic and
I think it is very clearly leaning in favor of SHOULD or MUST... of
course, Tim and Paul would be the ones to say for sure. I've updated
the Pace from MAY to SHOULD.
How it now reads:
When the server generates a response with a status code of 201
("Created"), it SHOULD also return a response body, which, if
provided, MUST be an Atom Entry Document representing the
newly-created resource. Clients MUST NOT assume that an Atom Entry
returned is a full representation of the member resource and SHOULD
perform a GET on the member resource before editing.
How's that?
- James
Joe Gregorio wrote:
> On 5/2/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, the first draft of PaceMediaEntries4 has been posted, incorporating
>> the feedback from Tim and clarifying the point that media link entries
>> MUST contain an atom:summary element and that servers may populate
>> required elements with content derived from the media resource or any
>> other source.
>>
>> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMediaEntries4
>
> -1 to PaceMediaEntries4 since it makes the return of an Atom
> Entry on POST a MAY instead of a SHOULD. Honestly I haven't seen
> a compelling reason why it shouldn't be a MUST, but anyway,
> I thought we'd talked that to death and only Tim was opposed?
>
> The other changes are ok and I would be +1 on a Pace with
> them as long as it kept Atom Entries on a POST response a SHOULD.
>
> Thanks,
> -joe
>
> --
> Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
>
