On 5/7/06, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 (as of 7th May 2006) It doesn't address population of compulsory entry feeds *, notably author, id. Why is only title supported - bug compatibility with 08? The workaround for summary/content is noted (though I somehow doubt that's what the syntax wg had in mind) It doesn't rationalize rel="edit-resource".
First, I agree with your comments elsewhere that this should be renamed. rel="edit-media" would be more appropriate.
And it needs to; editing non-header metadata about a resource v editing the resource is a first class webarch headache.
I don't see a web arch problem here.
How many resources are in play with a media entry?
Does it matter? There are two URIs that have different representations, whether or not those are the 'same' resource is a server implementation detail and as far as I can tell has no impact on the interop of the protocol.
I have a niggling worry that this header based stuff can't be supported via regular HTML forms,
We are talking about POSTing XML which automatically excludes traditional web forms, and has for every iteration of the protocol we've ever talked about. This is not new and has nothing to do with this Pace. (As others have pointed out XMLHttpRequest supports adding headers to requests, but that's orthogonal to HTML forms.)
and thus the protocol doesn't provide a natural upgrade/adoption path without doing an end run around browsers (maybe javascript write out headers?). Excluding most deployed HTTP clients should be a conscious thing. cheers Bill * Comment from James Tauber on something I wrote elsewhere about this: "This magic is currently required in -08, with or without PaceMediaEntries3." No matter, I'll being taking this pace series on its merits. If it gets rejected, we can talk about bugs in 08.
-- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
