Tim Bray wrote:
On Apr 15, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Nikunj Mehta wrote:Why are we reverting here to "any URIs" here after the earlier discussion on focusing primarily on the "public URIs" [1]? It is too much expectation to align all URIs to use the same naming scheme including the:== SLUG: [[[SLUG is an HTTP entity-header whose presence in a POST to a Collection, constitutes a request by the client to use header value as part of any URIs denoting the to-be-created Member Resource.]]Yeah, I'm with Nikunj. Slug really only exists for public-facing URIs, and the spec should say so. -Tim
Earlier you said it didn't matter whether it shows up in the member URI; this sounds like it matters that it doesn't.
I assume "public facing" == "entry/content@src". I'd like to say the latter in the spec as 'public facing' is highly unspecific. Please review the example:
<http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-14.html#mle-example>and let me know whether the fact the link URLs also have the slug embedded is actually a problem. I can try to wordsmith this, but further specification (eg turning "only exists for" into spec language) requires a consensus call.
cheers Bill