On 5/7/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/7/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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".
Still haven't gotten a straight answer here. I suppose the WG can
assume the channel flooding that followed this email is complete BS,
as usual. :/
--
Robert Sayre
