At 14:28 04/11/12, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
>Tim Bray wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 2004, at 9:17 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
>>
>>> However, I think you'll find that it is so "intuitively obvious" to people
>>> that feed-level claims are inherited by entries that it would be an absolute
>>> waste of time to try to enforce or even encourage that people don't apply
>>> it. Just saying it ain't so doesn't make it not so...
>>
>> What Bob said. -Tim
>>
>
>I am saying that the current spec language is the equivalent of
>
>"The author of the book may be considered the author of all the chapters in the book unless someone else is listed as the author of a particular chapter."
>
>Yes, intuitively obvious. The spec doesn't need to say this,
Why exactly does it not have to say that? The discussion we are having there seem to indicate that there are different possible interpretations, so it's better to say which one is the correct one.
>the language just gets us into trouble,
How exactly? If anything gets us into trouble, it is having <author> or <copyright> in the first place. There is nothing wrong in saying:
"If the author of a chapter is the same as the author of the book, the author of the chapter does not have to be mentioned." (which is the same as your example sentence above, except worded from a producer viewpoint rather than a consumer viewpoint).
What we are doing, in other words, is just defining one way to shorten the format and save bandwidth. It is absolutely unrelated to interpretation.
>and it has absolutely nothing to do with interoperation in syndication technology. Out it should go.
It does have to do with interoperation in syndication technology. If some processors assume they can take some shortcuts, but others don't, we get a mess. In particular, if somebody takes an entry without explicit <author> out of a feed, and puts it into another feed, they damn well are required to take the <author> in the feed and put it into the entry.
>And copyright is even worse.
Copyright may be worse indeed for interpretation. But we don't define interpretation. We only say what feeds are equivalent to what other feeds, for certain forms of feeds.
Regards, Martin.
