Re: issue: draft posts

[Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:45:32 -0500, Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Joe Gregorio wrote:
> 
> >
> > Ok, this just seems to be opening a can of worms. I think we should
> > just have the main entry collection. Once a client does a sync then
> > it should know which entries are drafts and can present that list
> > quickly to the user.
> 
> That ignores a client developer request[0]. 

That's a reasonable counter-point to the 
potential added complexity, so I am not 
against adding in a 'draft' collection.

> What was wrong with my
> suggestions?

I agree with Dare that your MOVE and POST suggestions 
seemed too complex and drove the complexity into the client.

As for PUTing with a new header, that takes information
on the state of a resource and places in in the metadata 
for the representation. When you do a PUT you are 
putting a representation of  a resource, 
that representation represents the new 'state' of 
that resource. It seems natural to me to include
the published/draft state in that representation.

   -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org