Re: Meaning of PUT, with (gasp) evidence

["Mark Baker" <distobj@xxxxxxx>]

On 6/15/06, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 10:40 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>
> > http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05349.html
> > http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05352.html
> > http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05357.html
>
> OK, granted, Mark was (apparently) seriously proposing that the GData
> behavior be made compulsory.
>
> Frankly, I didn't take those posts seriously.  In the real world,
> publishing system servers are just not going to blindly live with an
> either-copy-it-in-exactly-as-sent-or-declare-failure dichotomy.

That's not what I was saying Tim, as I tried to describe in the 2nd of
those three posts above;

http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05352.html

I also mentioned that there's an out with respect to storing certain
data if the media type makes it clear that the data are no-ops.  My
reading of RFC 4287 suggested atom:id was not such a no-op, but if
common practice suggests it is, then there's your answer.

Mark.