Antone Roundy wrote:
Questions and comments:
1) Why does atom:tagline go outside of atom:headentry? Why does atom:generator go inside atom:headentry?
People seem to want to move atom:tagline. atom:generator is allowed in atom:entry, it's just required in atom:headentry.
2) Does atom:entry get an atom:version?
No, that stays on the feed, though YAGNI.
how does it make sense to put atom:introspection into atom:entry vs. atom:headentry? same question for atom:post?
What doesn't make sense? same question for atom:post.
does atom:headentry get an atom:edit?
It could, but that's optional.
if so, can it be used to edit the atom:tagline, even though that's not in atom:headentry? if not, how is atom:tagline going to be edited? ...and so on.
Maybe the tagline is not editable. It currently isn't.
There seem to be lots of differences between the contents of atom:head (or atom:headentry) and atom:entry. With only section 4.2.11 being removed, how does this substantially shorten the spec?
I should have included a section that says to remove all of section 4. Whoops.
3) Could you elaborate on "Allows a straightforward way to implement hierarchy". I think I sort of get it, but this feels like a much bigger shift than the sparse language of the Pace would imply.
Well, it makes it possible to have every entry become a feed/collection, a very common request (often seen on lj_dev, for example). It's kind of a big shift I guess, but like Graham said, 90% of the elements were the same.
4) atom:headentry? he a dentry? what does this have to do with teeth? ;-) Seriously though, why not stick with the name atom:head, even if it is to be some sort of Entry Construct?
Sure, I just couldn't think of a decent name.
Robert Sayre
