On 5/21/05, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
No, it doesn't. Why are you saying it suggests that? There are two questions and two answers. I don't see a problem. > > Also, more importantly, how do you then indicate which individuals listed as > <contributor> have an <author> credit and which individuals were only > <contributor>s. Why are you mapping elements to types of credit? There is nothing in the spec that suggests they map to types of credit. As I said, please read the draft. > > 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)? No. Why do you think that's a requirement? Couldn't you add an extension to differentiate them? > > 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. Seriously, 2 more months of this crap to solve a 'problem' which you can't give an example of. You might have a perfect spec, but no one will care if it is never done. Robert Sayre
