Re: pacemediaentries4 and forced conneg?

[Robert Yates]

Joe Gregorio wrote:
It is there as the public/read-only reference to differentiate it from
the editable resource if they have different URIs:

"""When creating a public, read-only reference to the member resource,
  a client SHOULD use this value.
"""

Thanks, that makes sense, but couldn't the "alternate" link also provide 
this reference.  Why should we limit the server to only providing one 
external read-only reference?  Thinking about a scenario that is 
probably less of an edge condition what would happen if I post a picture 
of my cat to my blog's picture service.  This picture service stores the 
original and also makes available different sizes for it. What would the 
atom entry look like that represents this and what would the client use 
to create a "public, read-only reference" to one of the thumbnails.

I would assume that the atom entry that represents this would look 
something like this (maintaining consistency with PaceMediaEntries4)

   
   <?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.  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?

Rob