|
Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: msg#00467network.syndication.atom.protocol
> >I think it's been made rather clear that folks either have no idea what >you're talking about or disagree with your position. > Nice ad-hominem attack. I think the only person who's read and tried to understand, Julian, saw what I was talking about but neither agreed nor disagreed, instead stating that it should be discussed. The other dissents have been "prima facie" rejection of my _solution_ as "too complex" without making any attempt to understand the problem. Here's the logical fallacy in the APP: "Once a resource has been created and its URI is known, that URI can be used to retrieve, update, and delete the resource. " This asserts that the edit representation MUST be identical to the _resource_ and this is where you guys just lose me! The Member URI may be used to update and delete the resource, but it will only ever retrieve a _representation_ of the resource. -EJB |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00467, James M Snell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00467, Eric J. Bowman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperativei: 00467, James M Snell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Why MD5 Headers are Imperative: 00467, Joe Gregorio |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |