On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, James Cerra wrote:
>
> Aristotle Pagaltzis,
>
> Thanks for the clarifications.
>
> > > Section 1.2:
> > >
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
> > >
> > > I guess consistancy is not a requirement of the Atom spec. By
> > > convention, this should be all lower
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
- Robin Cover
Question: for what principal usage context(s) is this
name being designed?
I heard Tim say "quick, snappy label" ... to
distinguish it from Atom 0.3"
Does this mean "the default name for the spec/product
in any context not requiring any attributes other than
version number and minimal title-str
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Bob Wyman wrote:
+1. In spirit, I think I agree with what Bob says below. My mistake, in
trying to agree with Bob's statement that DRM "is a snake pit" [1] lead me
to overreach and say unnecessary things about DRM. I also support the
foundation of law with respect to IP, an
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Roger B. wrote:
>
> > A "rights" description might talk about trademarks, registered
> > trademarks, service marks, and so forth: different from copyright.
Isolating this statement creates a misrepresentation of the argument
for using the label "rights". The quoted statemen
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Graham wrote:
>
> On 8 May 2005, at 1:43 am, Robin Cover wrote:
>
> > I distinguished between minimal and optimal: minimally, I simply asked
> > for 'atom:rights' in place of 'atom:copyright'. How is that harmful
> > (oth
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 6:29 PM -0400 5/7/05, Robin Cover wrote:
> >The publication of a new Implementation Guideline by the
> >Open Archives Initiative (OAI) compels me to suggest once
> >again [1], as Norm Walsh [2], Bob Wyman [3], and others have
>
:copyright' element. Surely, "multiple (incompatible)
ad hoc solutions will be invented" ANYWAY, but providing
the basic markup construct in the Atom syntax spec would
point users in the right direction, rather than leaving
them directionless.
In making this request for WG reconsideration
