2006/5/8, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 5/7/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
My understanding is that it's the current IBM implementation's
behavior, but that it will be changed to reflect the WG consensus (I
mean, PaceMediaEntries4 doesn't contain the word "enclosure" any more:
the "media resource" is referenced from the atom:content only).
James could you confirm? Or are you thinking about overwriting the
atom:content with "rich HTML content" on subsequent PUTs?
--
Thomas Broyer
