On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 07:35 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
I presume [the head-in-entry] would supercede the feed's main atom:headNo. The atom.entry.head conveys completely different information
then atom.feed.head. One should not supercede the other. Each has a role and
each can be useful simultaneously.
For instance, I might produce the following feed:
<feed>
<head><copyright>Second Feed Corp.</copyright></head>
<entry>
<head><copyright>Source Feed Inc.</copyright></head>
<copyright>Tom Bombadil</copyright>
...
</entry>
</feed>
The copyright for this feed, as a collection, is claimed by "Second
Feed Corp." but the feed contains an entry whose copyright was claimed by
"Tom Bombadil". Tom's entry had been extracted from a feed whose copyright
was claimed by "Source Feed Inc.". All three copyright claims are active,
valid, and "interesting" in at least some contexts.
But what about this:
<feed>
<head><author><name>Joe</name></author></head>
<entry>
<head><author><name>Moe</name></author></head>
...<!--various stuff NOT including an author element-->...
</entry>
</feed>According to the current draft (or at least the implication of <head> requiring an <author> unless every <entry> has one), <entry> inherits <author> from <feed>. The the example above, it would make more sense for the entry's author to be Moe than Joe--Moe was the author when the entry was in its original feed, and aggregating into into this feed shouldn't change that.
At a glance, it looks like <copyright> is the only other element that might get inherited by <entry>:
"The atom:copyright element may be assumed to apply to all entries contained by the feed except those entries which contain atom:copyright elements. The atom:copyright element MUST, if present, be considered to apply to the feed as a collection of entries."
and later:
"If an atom:entry element does not contain an atom:copyright element, then the atom:copyright element of the containing atom:feed element's atom:head element, if present, should be considered to apply to the entry."
In that case too, clearly the copyright on the entry is not going to change just because it got aggregated into another feed.
