Re: Meaning of PUT, with (gasp) evidence

[James M Snell]

Absolutely +1 on not allowing the client to change the atom:id.

Tim Bray wrote:
>[snip]
> But, since we're quoting RFC2616 chapter and verse, I note the
> following: "If the Request-URI refers to an already existing resource,
> the enclosed entity SHOULD be considered as a modified version of the
> one residing on the origin server. "  I take that to imply that sending
> a PUT to the edit URI of an Atom Entry MUST NOT change the atom:id.
> 
>  -Tim
> 
>