On 5/7/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 7, 2006, at 9:25 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote: > It doesn't rationalize rel="edit-resource". And it needs to; > editing non-header metadata about a resource v editing the resource > is a first class webarch headache. How many resources are in play > with a media entry? Your other points aside, I just don't see a problem here. You do a POST, and as a consequence two resources are created: one is a "Media resource" containing whatever the body of your post represented, the second is a "Media link resource" which, irrespective of what kind of thing you posted, is represented by an Atom Entry and which describes the Media resource.
From what I've read on this list, that's not what some implementations
intend to do, and the pace reads like a handwave to allow all sorts of divergent behavior that would make it difficult to write a client. For example, one implementation intends to have "rich HTML content" in the content field, while still having an "edit resource". The issue is a pragmatic one, not a webarch conflict. I agree with Bill. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
