On 10/23/05, Luke Arno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know all this. > > I don't see what that tells me about link vs. edit. > > What am I missing?
Ah, field names. I like these sentences from my draft: "To retrieve the source representation of the entry, clients send a GET request to the URI found in each entry's pub:edit element (see Section 4.3.1). Derived resources are located by examining an entry's atom:link elements." "As with other collection members, derived resources can be located by inspecting an entry's atom:link elements." The WG draft takes the approach you seem to be advocating, and it ends up with marble-mouth names like "link rel source edit". Can give me text that uses that approach but is easy to read, understand, and speak? Robert Sayre
