Re: AtomAPI Rev 08

[James Robertson <jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 01:18 PM 12/2/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> Speaking for Blogger, we've been following the recommendation given at:
>
> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DifferentlyAbledClients
>
> Which asks that servers support both REST and SOAP Document Literal
> and let clients use either.


Suggestions are fine, an actual decision as to <required> interfaces would 
be much more helpful.  Here's the deal: crappy as the Blogger 1.0 api is, 
if I implement a client for it, it should 'just work' against any server 
claiming to support that api.

With atom, it's a crapshoot.

Which makes atom useless.



> -steve
>
>
> On Tue Dec 02 12:37:50 PST 2003, James Robertson
> <jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Here's my question - the spec looks ok, but how would I support it from a
> > client tool perspective?  There's no specified protocol for sending Atom
> > messages; rather, it seems wide open.  If it's wide open, with some people
> > supporting a REST based scheme, and others (like Google) supporting SOAP,
> > how would I go about creating a client that works?
> >
> > At 01:55 PM 12/2/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >Rev 08 of the AtomAPI has been released:
> > >
> > >   http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/
> > >
> > >Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
> > >
> > >         Thanks,
> > >         -joe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
> > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
> > jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView
jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx