On 31/7/07 12:34 PM, "Teo Hui Ming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoted from http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19607.html >> >> <entry> >> <title>The Atom Syndication Format</title> >> <summary>An alternative to RSS2.</summary> >> <link href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287"/> >> <category term="rfc"/> >> </entry> >> >> Linking to the RFC as an alternate representation of the entry suggests >> that the entry and the RFC issue from the same source. (ie. if the >> entry appears in a feed that lists me as an author it implies that >> RFC4287 was written by me) -- Brendan Taylor The author of that entry is Brendan. The author of the referenced document is [whoever] ... but the conflict can be resolved if Brendan avoids linking to the RFC as an "alternate" of his bookmark. It's not an alternate representation of his bookmark, it's the full thing. It's like if I wrote an essay on Shakespeare's "Romeo et Juliet" ... my essay is not an alternate to the play, and vice versa, so there is no conflict regarding which author to put on my entry. So, don't use rel="alternate" (or the null expression which defaults to the same value). Use some other relationship ... However, rel="related" doesn't really communicate the relationship between the reference and the referent, so I'm tempted to propose a new relationship. rel="referent" seems appropriate. Thus, we get: > <entry> > <title>The Atom Syndication Format</title> > <summary>An alternative to RSS2.</summary> > <link rel="referent" href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287"/> > <category term="rfc"/> > <author><name>Brendan Taylor</name></author> > </entry> Now, as to your scenario: > Bob wrote an article, and published it as an Atom document. > Alice published a translation of the article, and Bob wish to include > a link in his Atom document to point to Alice's translation. Bob would put his name into the entry he authored, but not because he wrote the original article. If a third party (Charles) were to write an entry linking to Bob's article or Alice's translation, then Charles would be the author. BTW, the "author" of Alice's translation would properly still be Bob, but Alice would qualify as a "contributor". e.
