Re: Need one more draft

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>]

* Tim Bray wrote:
>Clients cannot expect to publish and edit resources in an entirely  
>predictable manner.  The same series of POST requests to two  
>different publishing sites can result in a very different series of  
>HTTP responses, different resulting feeds and even different entry  
>contents.

I think the second sentence would be easier to read like

  The same series of requests to different publishing sites can result
  in a different series of responses, different resulting feeds, and
  even different entry contents.

>As a result of this model, client software has to be written flexibly  
>to accept whatever the server decides are the results of its  
>submissions.  Generally, any server response or server content  
>modification not explicitly forbidden by this specification or HTTP  
>is therefore allowed.

This last bit is a bad idea, this would result in arguments like this:

  A: Your server is doing this, that's not standards-compliant.
  B: Yes it is, APP says anything not disallowed is allowed.
  A: But APP says only "Generally" and the Foo spec that dis-
     allows this is a "HTTP" spec.
  B: No, by HTTP it means only the core HTTP RFCs, Foo isn't one.
     And yes "generally", there is nothing special about my case.
  A: Yes it is and yes there is!
  B: No !!!1

Better say that this is unconstrained or out of scope of this spec
without allowing anything and without the unspecific pointer to HTTP.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/