Tim Bray wrote:
Here's the latest: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMediaEntries5
WG members are invited to express their approval, or lack thereof, for
the record, by next Monday June 12th.
Well, I don't really consider myself a WG-member, but here are my comments:
In general I am +0 only, since I agree with Mark Baker's critique;
requiring an Atom Entry response body after a POST is too prescriptive.
Furthermore, sections 10.1 and 10.2 should state clearly whether more
than one "edit" or "edit-media" link is allowed on a single entry. (At
least for the case of multiple "edit-media" links I can think of use
cases. See [1] ff.)
And finally, I think "edit-src" would be a much better name for
"edit-media", since that's what it provides, a way to edit the resource
content/@src refers to. No need to invent yet another term...
If those issues were addressed adequately I would be +1 as well; I like
PaceMediaEntries5 in general.
With kind regards,
Andreas Sewe
[1] <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg05305.html>
