On 5/10/06, Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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".
-1
I'd prefer MAY too, or saying nothing at all, but if the alternative
is MUST, then SHOULD'll do.
BTW, here's what the TAG had to say about the issue;
"Constraint: An agent MUST NOT ignore or override authoritative
metadata without the consent of the party employing the agent."
-- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect-20060412
Given that a client conforming with the proposed text is being
licensed to assume an Atom entry in the response (i.e. assume a media
type), I think it's in violation of that constraint. The use of
SHOULD at least makes it clear that the media type needs to be
checked.
Mark.
