On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that the current text is very misleading. The fact that at one > point inheritance has been condoned or suggested by previous drafts > (including the widely implemented pre-IETF public draft), but now we > have removed the suggestion, but kept the syntactic requirement > certainly got me.
So, are you saying that we're required to explicitly reverse any requirement present in previous drafts? > The fact that the draft conflates the author > (editor?) of the feed with the author of the entries increases the > confusion. Where does the draft conflate the two? Robert Sayre
