Re: PaceURINomenclature and PaceOnlyMemberURI

Kyle Marvin wrote:
> On 8/18/06, Elias Torres <elias-teabWVY4yyH1P9xLtpHBDw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>>
>> I think they are both easy to implement but I lean towards
>> PaceURINomenclature because it gives me the option of separating my
>> edit-uri from self-uri.
> 
> For the record, POMU doesn't prevent you from splitting them... in
> fact it says *nothing* about the self URI.
> 

Hmmm.. That's a good point of view. Is the definition of 'self' in an
earlier today that it must the full Atom representation of the entry
correct? If so, wouldn't that say that client developers can always use
it as a fallback mechanism *if* the member URI returns 409 let's say?

-Elias