On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, are you saying that we're required to explicitly reverse any
> > requirement present in previous drafts?
>
> No, we're required to state the situation one way or the other. The
> current draft doesn't say that author is inherited, so I assumed that
> my original interpretation was incorrect.
>
> If it is intended to be inherited, can we still add text saying that
> it is inherited as an editorial change?
We can clarify and improve the draft to your heart's delight. It's
unproductively revisiting old arguments that bothers me. :)
> Given this feed, how should it be displayed by an implementation?
My problem is that the draft (wisely) doesn't make requirements about
what implementations should 'display'. Shrook and PubSub.com are both
'implementations' and both may or may not 'display' authors, either of
a feed or an entry.
Here is the code that determines what to put in the "From" field when
Thunderbird parses an RSS2 feed:
item.author = getNodeValue(itemNode.getElementsByTagName("author")[0]
||
itemNode.getElementsByTagName("creator")[0])
|| aFeed.title
|| item.author;
That's not particularly sophisticated. I think the author of that code
assumed finding the author would be Really Simple. Are you suggesting
we can specify what that code should do, briefly, usefully, and
clearly? If so, let's hear it. My personal opinion is that the best
way for publishers to ensure their preferred text is displayed is to
put an author element in the atom:entry. Of course, code like the
stuff above wouldn't pick up multiple atom:author elements (just
thought I'd mix it up :)
Robert Sayre
