Subject: PaceLinkEnclosure needs help

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:51:50 -0800

This Pace is a mess.  I *think* its real purpose in life to suggest 
changing <atom:enclosure> to <atom:attachment>.  As it stands, it's 
highly likely to get drop-kicked by the chairs for being uncooked.  If 
someone really wants this change, the Pace needs revision right now.  
-Tim

---

From: Ray Slakinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 07:09:24 -0500

So does that meant that it will be separated out from this Pace and 
removed from the Images spec?

If so I think its basis is still pretty good but instead of <link 
rel=enclosure... it would read <attachment>

<attachment> should include rel, url, type, length.

url, type, and length is pretty obvious, but rel could be used to 
specify alternate, torrent, quality and things like that, and allow 
future expansion without breaking when we do.

[-----]
Ray Slakinski
Fingerprint: C8AD 4847 2DA8 3469 079D  13F9 135D F0CF 1CFC FD03

Blog: http://ddll.sdf1.net

If God had meant for us to be in the Army, we would have been born with
  green, baggy skin.

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:15:26 -0700

> future expansion without breaking when we do.
If the content being pointed to is an alternate of the entry content, 
<link rel="alternate" ... /> is probably better--using <attachment>) 
for that would duplicate functionality.

@rel probably isn't the best name for the other values you suggest.  
Off the top of my head, I'd recommend allowing extension child elements 
or extension attributes to specify such things.

---

From: Ray Slakinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 17:15:56 -0500

I think your right in a way -- I agree that for 'alternate' it should 
be a child element, but I hate to do that for <attachment> so lets drop 
that I said that. Having said that I still think rel would be good to 
keep.

I want to keep it simple and as close to <enclosure> as possible.

[-----]
Ray Slakinski

Mosher's Law of Software Engineering:
  	Don't worry if it doesn't work right.  If everything did, you'd
  be out of a job.

On 2-Feb-05, at 11:15 AM, Antone Roundy wrote:

> Off the top of my head, I'd recommend allowing extension child 
> elements or extension attributes to specify such things.
>