Thomas Broyer wrote: > 2006/4/27, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Ok, so this time it's actually done. Per an offlist suggestion (plea? >> ;-) ..) from Thomas, rather than cut-and-paste the full text of the pace >> here, I'll just provide a link to the pace which includes a summary of >> changes relative to PaceMediaEntries ;-) > > Doh! That's not what I meant… but, well, no matter… > > Actually, I was suggesting adding a summary of changes in the Pace but > exclude it from the cut/paste to the list, especially to try to > prevent what I'm going to do below ;-)
Heh, sorry ;-) > >> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMediaEntries2 > >> 1. Section 8.1 "If the server generates a response with a status code >> of 201 ("Created"), the response SHOULD include an Atom Entry >> Document representing the newly-created resource." > > I'm still not OK with this: lacks the Content-Location == Location > thingy. But, well, no problem, this'll be another Pace on the table. > Actually, I was going to add in the Content-Location thing but completely forgot about it. I'll add that in today. >[snip] >> 3. Section 8.3 has been changed from a notion of "Media Entries", >> to "Entries with associated resources". Such resources can be linked >> to the entry via content/@src or an enclosure link. The common thread >> is that a link with @rel="edit-resource" is used to edit the associated >> media resource. This means that folks can still use content/@src to >> reference the public endpoint of the media resource if they want, but >> that the edit URI is always specified by the edit-resource link. > > The "associated resource" can be referenced either using content/@src > or [EMAIL PROTECTED]"enclosure"], isn't this a bit confusing? > Namely, content/@src does not "link [an associated resource] to the > entry", it defines the *content* of the entry. > And there's still a problem with multiple enclosures… > I purposefully left this vague. The edit-resource link can be used to specify the edit uri of any resource linked to the entry in any way. We could further clarify things by providing "edit-content" / "edit-enclosure" links if that would be clearer. Multiple enclosures would still be out of scope, but could be handled through the use of multiple edit-resource links. - James
