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
--
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
