Re: AtomAPI Rev 08

[Steve Jenson <sjenson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue Dec 02 13:26:55 PST 2003, James Robertson
<jarober@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.


I think that, as a start, the DifferentlyAbledClients recommendation 
should be added to the API spec as Required.

Joe, what do you think? You hold the reigns for that document 
currently but I know you hate SOAP. Honestly, I find both the REST 
and SOAP Document Literal forms equally easy to implement.


-steve