On 22/5/05 3:38 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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?
OK, answer me this: if an entry has only one person associated with it, do
we write it with just a lone <author> element, or do we write it with an
<author> element *and* a <contributor> element?
What if there was one person who wrote the text, and two people who provided
suggestions or feedback or research (etc) but did not write any of the text,
and the publisher wishes to acknowledge their valuable input ... one
<author> and two <contributor>s, or one <author> and three <contributor>s?
>> 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?
Are you seriously playing these word games for the sheer hell of it?
Let me try rephrasing to something more literal:
how do you then indicate which individuals listed as a
<contributor> could be referred to as an "author", and
which individuals are "contributors" but not "author"?
> There is nothing in the spec that suggests they map to types of credit.
> As I said, please read the draft.
bullshit. format-08 says:
The "atom:author" element is a Person construct that
indicates the author of the entry or feed.
^^^^^^^^^
and
The "atom:contributor" element is a Person construct that indicates a
person or other entity who contributed to the entry or feed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, unless you can point to the place in the spec which re-defines those
two words in the English language, then we must assume they mean what they
commonly mean. They *don't* mean the same thing.
The *don't* mean the same thing. If they did, we wouldn't need two elements,
now would we?
> Seriously, 2 more months of this crap to solve a 'problem' which you
> can't give an example of.
I've previously given examples in a round a bout way. Let me be more
explicit for you then:
Publish an entry which indicates multiple people who are to be known as
an "author" of the entry, and distinguish them from some number of persons
who are to be known as a "contributor" to the entry (while not actually
being "authors"). Their "contributions" might be background research, for
example. Refer to sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 for the meanings of "author" and
"contributor".
> You might have a perfect spec, but no one will care if it is never done.
I'm not looking for a perfect spec. I'm hoping for a *useful* spec, one
applicable to some very real real-world use cases. Getting a feed document
to validate is nice, but it's not the end goal -- we must be able to
*extract* the data meaningfully.
e.
