Re: Posted PaceEnclosuresAndPix

[Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1 it is then.

(with multiples, and including the aspect ratio/resize hint - that
seems good pragmatism)


On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:04:39 -0800, Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> 
> > 1. If the media object is the primary content of the entry (which
> > seems to be the main use case for RSS 2.0's <enclosure>), shouldn't it
> > be delivered using some form of the <content> element?
> 
> I used to think that, but we observe in the RSS2 world that there's a
> well-accepted use case for something that's specially designated for
> different handling.  Why fight it?
> 
> > 2. Without multiple rel="enclosure", how does support and
> > differentiate between media objects that are essentially the same
> > resource but different formats, where the difference may not (easily)
> > be expressed using mime types? Example:
> 
> I'm pretty well convinced that multiples can't hurt.
> 
> > 3. I don't think this Pace is the right place for listing what should
> > go in the <link> registry - separation of concerns and all that
> 
> That's because it's done as a delta to FieldingLinks, the new languages
> goes in a couple of places in that section so I just preserved it.
> 
> > 4. What do we call an inline (i.e. base64 encoded content) media
> > object - an attachment?
> 
> Nope, that's just <content>  -Tim
> 
> 


-- 

http://dannyayers.com