Re: pacemediaentries4 and forced conneg?

[Joe Gregorio]

On 5/16/06, Robert Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; 
xmlns:rme="http://robubu.com/robmediaextensions/";>
      <title>My Cat</title>
      <id>urn:uuid:1225c695-cfb8-4ebb-aaaa-80da344efa6a</id>
      <updated>2003-12-13T18:30:02Z</updated>
      <author><name>Rob</name></author>
      <content type="image/png" src="http://example.org/media/img123.png"/>
      <link rel="related" type="image/png" rme:size="small" 
href="http://example.org/media/img123sm.png"/>
      <link rel="related" type="image/png" rme:size="medium" 
href="http://example.org/media/img123md.png"/>
      <link rel="related" type="image/png" rme:size="large" 
href="http://example.org/media/img123lg.png"/>
      <link rel="related" type="image/png" rme:size="original" 
href="http://example.org/media/img123.png"/>
      <link rel="edit" href="http://example.org/edit/first-post.atom"; />
      <link rel="edit-media" type="image/png" 
href="http://example.org/edit/img123.png"; />
    </entry>

The client is not going to utilize the content/@src link in this
scenario, instead it is going to allow the user to choose the
representation that they want to use.

What is the rme: namespace? Do all clients need to support rme?
How does rme help the client pick a representation in the
calendar examples which started this discussion?

Mandating a single public read
only reference that clients "SHOULD" use seems like it is going to limit
flexibility for use cases that don't seem too close to the edge to me.
Are we sure we need to mandate the use of content/@src?

Maybe the wording needs to be reworked. What I would like to
see is that content/@src MUST be supplied and that it indicates
the 'preferred' read-only resource for the server, the client
is free to choose among all the link/@rel="whatever"s if it so
chooses for another resource.

  -joe

--
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org