Thomas Broyer wrote: > > 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? >
We haven't decided yet. Most likely we'll end up using atom:summary for the html content, but I personally don't see a problem if an entry switches content types after it is initially posted. Either way, we'll go with whatever behavior the WG defines as being conformant. - James
