Re: Posted PaceURINomenclature

On 8/18/06, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray-xsfywfwIY+M@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Kyle Marvin wrote:
>
> > On 8/18/06, Bill de hÓra <bill-h1s9WT/giYOsTnJN9+BGXg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe GET on the edit URI is assured to be undefined.
> >
> > The PACE says "The Edit URI may respond to GET requests, but client
> > software MUST NOT rely on this"
> >
> > How about "unreliable" instead of "undefined"?  :)
>
> Right, but if we adopt PaceOnlyMemberURI, then this is no longer
> true, right?  It is *expected* to respond to GET.

Yes, it's a key difference and one of two reasons I flipped my opinion
and favor POMU.