+1 it is then. (with multiples, and including the aspect ratio/resize hint - that seems good pragmatism)
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:04:39 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > > > 1. If the media object is the primary content of the entry (which > > seems to be the main use case for RSS 2.0's <enclosure>), shouldn't it > > be delivered using some form of the <content> element? > > I used to think that, but we observe in the RSS2 world that there's a > well-accepted use case for something that's specially designated for > different handling. Why fight it? > > > 2. Without multiple rel="enclosure", how does support and > > differentiate between media objects that are essentially the same > > resource but different formats, where the difference may not (easily) > > be expressed using mime types? Example: > > I'm pretty well convinced that multiples can't hurt. > > > 3. I don't think this Pace is the right place for listing what should > > go in the <link> registry - separation of concerns and all that > > That's because it's done as a delta to FieldingLinks, the new languages > goes in a couple of places in that section so I just preserved it. > > > 4. What do we call an inline (i.e. base64 encoded content) media > > object - an attachment? > > Nope, that's just <content> -Tim > > -- http://dannyayers.com
