PME5 is silent on the cardinality of edit-media because I didn't think there was any reason to specify it. We have use cases where multiple edit-media links are valid and very useful. Most commonly, however, there will likely only ever be one. Some statement that an entry MAY contain multiple edit-media links would be appropriate, but I'm not convinced it's necessary.
- James Joe Gregorio wrote: > > On 6/12/06, Andreas Sewe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> OK, so far so good. But what about the case where both the "image/png" >> and "image/gif" version are supposed to be editable? (The server might >> e.g., synchronize both versions, after an edit, by automatic conversion >> again.) >> >> In this case the entry has multiple "edit-media" links which do point to >> different resources (at least to different URIs, namely >> <http://example.org/media/1.png> and <http://example.org/media/1.gif>): > > Yeah, that's a good catch, PaceMediaEntries5 is silent on the cardinality > of 'edit-media' links and that needs to be fixed. I really don't care if we > say there can be at most one or if we allow more than one, but > PaceMediaEntries5 > does need to be clarified on that point. > >> Here RFC 4287's definition of "alternate" (every editable media resource >> is also an alternate version of the entry) unfortunately provides no >> hints as to the validity of the above, since its definition uses neither >> the term "resource" nor the term "representation"; it just talks about >> "versions". > > Yes, it appears that in some bizarre attempt to avoid WebArch > nomeclature some ambiguity is present in RFC 4287. I'm just shocked. > >> At any rate, is the above extended example valid with respect to >> PaceMediaEntries5? > > Good question, right now it's ambiguous and that obviously needs to be > resolved. > > Thanks, > -joe >
