On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 05:08:10PM +0100, Graham wrote: > >Exactly. It's extremely easy to think of cases that don't fit the > >model proposed. Consider the "Huffington Post", where the feed might > >list Arianna Huffington as the author, and everybody else as a > >contributor. But, it would make sense to list her as a contributor as > >well. > > Why? She's already credited as the author. If you can explain why > that isn't completely redundant and confusing to software, a gold > star to you.
Erm ... it's not redundant, because it's expressing something that a person might want to express. Software can't really be confused by this, providing we make semantics clear - and I don't think people will be confused (unless the feed producer intended them to be confused). However I'm not religious about this particular issue, and I'm +1 on the latest PaceClarifyAuthorContributor. I think we still need a clarification along the lines of what danbri suggested, to make things as obvious as possible. James -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ James Aylett xapian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] uncertaintydivision.org
