Bill de hÓra wrote:
>[snip]
> A pace to rectify a pace (which might go to another rev) doesn't strike
Not so much "a pace to rectify a pace" as a "pace to rectify a problem
that's existed long before this pace came along". I've already started
on some draft text and an example that I will post as a separate Pace.
I do not intend to rev PaceMediaEntries4 any further.
One question tho. It may be a combination of the fact that the medicine
I'm currently on makes me quite drowsy and that I've completely run out
of coffee, but I'm really not sure I'm completely understanding your
objection to PaceMediaEntries4. Therefore, let me see if I can
summarize it correctly:
1. You're not sure about why link/@rel=edit-resource exists
2. You want to see some text/examples that explain where the magic
happens for author/summary/etc in media posts
Is that accurate?
- James
>[snip]
> reasonable. You said the matter's "orthogonal", which I interpreted as
> "won't address here" - my apologies if I've misunderstood you.
>
It just wasn't a problem I was trying to solve. If we need to solve it,
that's ok too. It's not something we've really had a problem with in
our implementation (which uses a combination of Title,
Content-Disposition, Content-Description, Slug and Authorization headers
to perform the necessary magic. I'm working up some spec text that
describes the way we're doing it and I'll post it as a (separate) Pace
either later this evening or tomorrow.
- James
