On 22/5/05 2:51 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> what if <author> in that example was renamed to <byline> (and specced to be >> something other than a Person Construct), and some mechanism introduced to >> indicate the nature of the contribution by each of the <contributor>s?
> What are you talking about? Please refrain from complaining your pet > semantics aren't in the draft. It wasn't a complaint, it was a suggestion, and it was directed more to Graham than to you. Here's a free cluepon: "what if [...]" > Here are some simple questions, which > you can answer by reading the example I gave, and reading the draft. > > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15380.html > > Who is the author of that entry? > Who are the contributors? The problem with the example you gave is that it suggests that even entries with just the one author/contributor would need two person constructs in the entry, or maybe just the one ... either way it's confusing. Also, more importantly, how do you then indicate which individuals listed as <contributor> have an <author> credit and which individuals were only <contributor>s. Consider this example (and please note that the second line isn't the literal bits on the wire): <entry> <author><name>##### a list of THREE names #####</name></author> <contributor><name>Bob Bellows</name><uri>B.html</uri></contributor> <contributor><name>Fred Fellows</name><uri>F.html</uri></contributor> <contributor><name>Jon Jello</name><uri>J.html</uri></contributor> <contributor><name>Ada Aiello</name><uri>A.html</uri></contributor> [...] </entry> Now, this *is* a valid format-08 document, right? BUT can you tell me who the THREE authors are, and who the fourth person is who is only a contributor (and not an author)? So: valid format-08, but junk data. > There is no mention of 'byline'. There most certainly is a mention of the thing I have referred to elsewhere as a "byline". It happens to be serialised within <author><name>. Instead of the literal element name "byline" I could just as easily use the literal element name of "authorship". > format-08 works. for some definition of "works" ... like "passes the validator", but not "provides meaningful semantics". > I fully agree that other ways of arranging authors and contributors > are possible and reasonable, but no one has demonstrated a document > that format-08 can't cover. can we shoe-horn data into elements? sure. would that document then pass the validator? sure can we extract that data in a meaningful sense? no. > At this stage, changing the spec to suit > religious preferences would be extremely arrogant. Oh, please, stop trolling. e.
