Alex Milowski wrote:
Maybe I'm off-base here, but I really need to be able to edit the metadata for entries or *feed* in a standard and uniform way--regardless of the content of the entry. Just because someone posts a binary to a feed doesn't necessitate that how the metadata is handled or the wants of the application/user is any different.
In our implementation, we're doing this [editing feed metadata] by associating a feed/collection with it's own editable atom entry in a special meta-collection used to create/manage feeds.
In the end, having a differentiation between media collections and entries for this doesn't help me. I've gotten myself to the point where *everything* is a media collection--including those that just contain entries. I realize that is a bit different from the idea of collections being promoted by the spec, but it doesn't look like a non-compliant use.
We're taking the opposite approach: that is, everything is an entry collection. We've found that media collections simply aren't useful to us at all.
The back-end database I use (eXist) lets me store both binaries and XML side-by-side in a single collection. Hence the distinction isn't useful for me. I understand how it can be useful for other implementation choices and I just want and inclusive model. That is, I'd like to remove the distinction from my implementation and be able to say that it is compliant.
At this point, I'm going to stick by an argument I've been making for months now: the distinction between media and entry collections simply isn't as useful as folks originally may have imagined. Media collections should be removed from the spec. Do everything via entry collections.
- James
