[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Collection convergence?

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Collection convergence?
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:47:40 -0500
Cc: Atom Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <>
Reply-to: mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Tim Bray wrote:

OK, given that everybody who cares about this is supposed to be paying attention here, and nobody has shouted "STOP", why don't we do another protocol draft right now, and then do a finding on what else is required to finish the job. Rob & Joe? -Tim

I think we should delete the sections on "locating" (maybe leave placeholders), delete text on any response code that we assign no additional semantics to (everything but 201, right?), delete the text on expected response codes (I have no idea what that means), delete the text "request/response body constraints" and define new media types if we need them because those aren't Atom documents, delete the section on authentication, and move the SOAP stuff to another document or delete it.

Robert Sayre

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Collection convergence?
  - From: Tim Bray

References:
- Collection convergence?
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Collection convergence?
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: Collection convergence?
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Collection convergence?
Next by Date: Re: Collection convergence?
Previous by thread: Re: Collection convergence?
Next by thread: Re: Collection convergence?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread