Re: Searching for concensus on Pub Control (Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl)

["Thomas Broyer" <t.broyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ezra Cooper wrote:
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 3:39 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
>
>> On Jul 21, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Ezra Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, for transferring the bits of an image, I prefer using PUT
>>> to a so-called Generic Resource. The idea of having an XML wrapper
>>> around that kind of raw data was shot down on the list a long time
>>> ago. At least one reason is that base64 gives you a 33% increase in
>>> transfer size, which is a burden, particuarly for mobile clients.
>>
>> Why can't you POST an image or whatever in binary form to a generic
>> collection via the editURI?  The protocol shouldn't get in the way.
>> -Tim
>
> That too! I think this is pretty well established in the list archives
> & the draft.
>
> I just meant "avoid XML wrapper" for these items (as opposed to what
> Snell was suggesting).

So the APP "Generics" are just a simpler FTP: instead of creating a
directory for my photos, I'd create a Generic Collection; with some
limitations such as not being able to nest collections the way you create
"sub-directories" using FTP, and maybe not being able to PUT anything but
image/* to the collection [1].

If this is what Generic Collections are meant to be, then I suggest not to
apply "control information" to them.

[1] http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCollectionsAcceptedMediaTypes

-- 
Thomas Broyer