On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, at 09:04 AM, Asbj�rn Ulsberg wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:13:06 +0200, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:The point is that atom:summary is to contain the metadata from the feed in which the entry originated. When an entry is copied form the originating feed, the feeds metadata is put into atom:summary inside the entry. When the same entry is copied from the second feed to a third feed, it already has atom:summary, so the metadata from the second feed MUST NOT be copied into atom:summary, which would replace the metadata from the originating feed. Which part of this is unclear from the text above? Would this be better?Should we add something like this?
If an atom:entry element already containing an atom:source element
is copied to another feed, the contents of the atom:source element
MUST NOT be replaced with metadata from the containing atom:feed.
I think I understand what you want, but I'm having difficulties reading the paragraph. If I misunderstand (or don't undersand it at all ;-) it, perhaps readers and implementors of the Atom spec. will as well?
If an atom:entry element already containing an atom:source element
is copied to another feed, the contents of the atom:source element
MUST NOT be replaced.This simplifies the sentence, and contains all the critical information. I personally don't like it as much, because it feels a little incomplete, and it doesn't call out the metadata that people would be most likely to erroneously replace it with. But I wouldn't complain if we went with this.
