Re: multipart posts

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Doh! Excellent point!  Given that restriction,
<accept>multipart/related</accept> could *never* result in a media
resource of type multipart/*.  That's actually a very important
restriction that I think we missed completely in the protocol.

- James

James Holderness wrote:
> 
> James M Snell wrote:
>> how would I use the multipart/related media type to communicate the
>> three different behaviors I alluded to in my note:
>>
>>  1. Accepting multipart/related as a regular media resource
>>  2. Accepting multipart/related as a compound post containing a media
>>     resource and it's media link entry
>>  3. Accepting multipart/related for some other purpose
> 
> If it helps any, you can immediately eliminate option 1 since RFC4287
> makes it illegal. You couldn't have a multipart/related media resource,
> because RFC4287 doesn't allow the type attribute to be a composite type.
> Seems like a silly restriction, but it's there in the spec.
> 
> Regards
> James
> 
>