Can I just make sure we're all thinking the same thing? Using James'
example:
POST /myblog/entries HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Content- Type: image/png
Title: A picture of the beach
{binary data}
I get back
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:17:11 GMT
Content- Type: application/atom+xml; charset="utf-8"
Content- Location: http://example.org/edit/first-post.atom
Location: http://example.org/edit/first-post.atom
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";>
<title>A picture of the beach</title>
<id>urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a</id>
<updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
<author><name>John Doe</name></author>
<content type="image/png" src="http://example.org/media/
img123.png"/>
<link rel="edit" href="http://example.org/edit/first-
post.atom" />
<link rel="edit-resource" href="http://example.org/edit/
img123.png" />
</entry>
So, in human-readable terms, using the new terminology: I post a
media resource and I get back a media link entry which describes it.
If I want to change the atom:title, I do a put on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]"edit"
URI. If I've photoshopped the picture and want to refresh it, I do a
PUT on the [EMAIL PROTECTED]"edit-resource" URI. If I want to remove it, I
do a DELETE on [EMAIL PROTECTED]"edit". If I do a DELETE on [EMAIL PROTECTED]"edit-
resource", that's a bug.
I don't want to say the media link entry "represents" the media
resource, because that could cause confusion with the word
"representation" as bandied-about in Web Architecture. Thus
"describes".
The way I got here was I wrote a long posting to point out what I
thought was a subtle bug and in the process realized I didn't fully
understand the proposal. So if people agree with the interpretation
in the paragraph above, I'm going to write some draft test for the
spec to say more or less that and try to head off others from making
the same error I made. -Tim
