Eric Scheid wrote:
[1] PaceDontUseContentSrc
-0 ... MUST is a problem if there isn't (yet) a public read-only IRI, so
with no [EMAIL PROTECTED]'alternate'] the entry must have either an
atom:summary or
an atom:content element (right?)
I can't recall if I answered this or not. This pace only impacts the
listing of resources within a media collection feed. Given that, it is a
safe bet that there is going to be an alternate link. The potential
issue of a non-existent alternate link only really comes into play when
posting a new entry to an entry collection.
<feed>
<title>My media resources</title>
...
<entry>
<title>image1.png</title>
...
<link rel="alternate" href="http://example.org/public/1.png"; />
<link rel="edit" href="http://example.org/edit/1.png"; />
</entry>
</feed>
To the broader issue tho...
It simply does not make any sense for entry and media collections to
have two different ways of referencing the edit IRI's of their member
resources.
Section 10.1 of Draft -07: "The value of "edit" specifies that the IRI
in the value of the href attribute is the IRI of the member resource,
and is intended to be used to update and delete resources as described
in this specification"
What possible technical justification is there for this description
*not* to apply to media resources?
- James
![http://example.org/public/1.png"](http://example.org/public/1.png"){kind=link}
![http://example.org/edit/1.png"](http://example.org/edit/1.png"){kind=link}