Re: MUST a collection be returned as an Atom feed?

[Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@xxxxxxx>]

On Dec 28, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> In theory, yes,

I take that to mean: "Yes, a collection MUST be available as an Atom  
feed". Yes?


Jan





> you could put lots of different representations there
> and then do
> content negotiation. But I would advise against that:
>
>   http://bitworking.org/news/WebServicesAndContentNegotiation
>
>   Thanks,
>   -joe
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Jan Algermissen
> <algermissen1971@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I have raised the following issue on rest-discuss in various forms  
> > already.
> > Excuse me for bringing it up on this list again. I am just curious  
> > what
> > people here think.
> >
> > RFC 5023 says:
> >  "Collection - A Resource that contains a set of Member Resources.
> > Collections are represented as Atom Feeds."[1]
> > Does that mean that an AtomPub server MUST be (at least) respond to  
> > a GET on
> > a collection URI with an Atom feed
> > representation?
> >
> > I am asking because I consider that to be too constraining. The  
> > client
> > should not be able to make such an assumption. It should discover  
> > at runtime
> > that the response is application/atom+xml rather than expect it to  
> > be prior
> > to the request.
> > Jan
> >
> > [1]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#section-3

--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen

Mail: algermissen@xxxxxxx
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------