On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 7:20 AM, James Abley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just curious if anyone has done this or has opinions either way; e.g.
>
> <link href="http://example.com/path/to/{deviceType}/movie/resource";
> type="video/quicktime" />
>
> Where the client applications know to substitute the parameter
> appropriately.
>
> Versus using Media RSS or similar:
>
> <media:group>
> <media:content url="http://example.com/movie1.mov";
> fileSize="15555"
> type="video/quicktime"
> medium="video"
> isDefault="true"
> expression="full"
> bitrate="128"
> framerate="25"
> samplingrate="44.1"
> channels="2"
> duration="185"
> height="200"
> width="300"
> lang="en"/>
> <media:content url="http://example.com/movie2.mov";
> fileSize="12345"
> type="video/quicktime"
> medium="video"
> isDefault="true"
> expression="full"
> bitrate="128"
> framerate="25"
> samplingrate="44.1"
> channels="2"
> duration="185"
> height="200"
> width="300"
> lang="en" />
> </media:group>
>
> For my domain (mobile applications) the smaller payload is quite attractive,
> and I control all of the clients of the feed, since I'm writing them. One
> niggle is that I don't think the URI template is a valid IRI, so validation
> tools might grouse.
Correct, URI Templates are not URIs, and there's explicit language in the
drafts that covers that:
URI Template expressions are not URIs: they do not identify an abstract
or physical resource, they are not parsed as URIs, and should not be used
in places where a URI would be expected unless the template expressions
will be expanded by a template processor prior to use. Distinct
field, element,
or attribute names should be used to differentiate protocol
elements that carry
a URI Template from those that expect a URI-reference.
Using URI Templates will require either creating a custom namespaced
element for your
specific case, or creating a more general namespaced 'tlink' element
that is just like
'link', but the value of href is expected to be a URI Template.
Thanks,
-joe
>
> Cheers,
>
> James
>
