I will note that while I argued in the past for a SHOULD for the return of an Atom Entry on the response to a POST that I have since been convinced that it is not necessary and would be open to it being a MAY. I'm +1 with either wording.
-joe On 6/8/06, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 -joe On 6/7/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <co-chair-mode> > Here's the latest: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMediaEntries5 > > WG members are invited to express their approval, or lack thereof, > for the record, by next Monday June 12th. > > The co-chairs will do a consensus call based on the results and we'll > get a protocol-09 draft which with any luck will be the one we send > out for IETF last call. > </co-chair-mode> > > -Tim > > -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
-- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
