Re: Meaning of PUT

["Robert Sayre" <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/14/06, Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 6/14/06, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I suggest a new subsection of whatever Section 8 ends up being
> > numbered as
> >
> > x.y Updating and Deleting Entries.
>
> Agreed, a new section is definitely called for but you've
> only answered the question for atom:id.
> If you remember we used to have a table in
> the spec up until -06 which spelled all of this out:

The table had *terrible* interop. Implementors basically ignored it,
it seemed to me. I wouldn't care what the table said if I had a good
reason to do something different. Would you?

Tim Bray wrote:
>  I.e. in the first case, we're saying "Client: don't do this."  In the
> second "Server: if the client stupidly requests this, ignore it."

NO. -1. Do not design requirements for servers you know nothing about.
Servers: send an error if a client sends a request you can't deal
with. Do not silently "correct" the request. This is how HTTP works,
it's a normative reference, don't rewrite some busted version in Atom
Protocol. OK?

--

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."