A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Thomas Broyer [2005-05-24 15:15]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Thomas Broyer [2005-05-24 09:05]:
c)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
contributor: C
[...]
c) The entry inherits the author but overrides the
contributor. I'm also open
Antone Roundy suggests:
make atom:author plural
keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
To me that sounds like the simplest thing that can possibly work,
and looks like it hits the 80/20 mark. It also requires the least
squabbling over its implementation. And Robert has
: A
contributor: B
entry:
no author not contributor
b)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
author: C
c)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
contributor: C
d)
feed:
contributor: A
entry:
author: B
contributor: C
e)
feed:
contributor: A
entry:
author: B
* Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-24 09:05]:
a)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
no author not contributor
b)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
author: C
c)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
contributor: C
d)
feed
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Thomas Broyer [2005-05-24 09:05]:
c)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
contributor: C
[...]
c) The entry inherits the author but overrides the contributor. I'm
also open to considering it invalid.
[...]
The rule you propose for contributor semi
On Mon, 23 May 2005 07:22:49 +0200, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
make atom:author plural
keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
It's the best suggestion made so far that has any potential of getting
into the spec until christmas, so I'm +1 on this. :-)
--
Asbjrn
* Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-24 15:15]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Thomas Broyer [2005-05-24 09:05]:
c)
feed:
author: A
contributor: B
entry:
contributor: C
[...]
c) The entry inherits the author but overrides the
contributor. I'm also open to considering
On 23 May 2005, at 07:22, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15517.html),
Antone Roundy suggests:
make atom:author plural
keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
+1 to all
I think that makes sense, especially if one thinks
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15517.html),
Antone Roundy suggests:
make atom:author plural
keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
To me that sounds like the simplest thing that can possibly work,
and looks like it hits
co-chair-modeWe observe a significant amount of discomfort with the
current one-author/multiple-contributors model in atom-format.
Despite the mentions that Rob dug up, nobody can claim this has had
serious in-depth discussion in the IETF context.
On the other hand, we note that the
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 15:48+1000]
On 23/5/05 3:22 PM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antone Roundy suggests:
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
To me that sounds like the simplest thing that can
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 05:56:18AM -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
Antone Roundy suggests:
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
+1, +1, +.5 from me
+1, +.5, +.5 from me.
James
--
I'm not 100% convinced of the need for contributor, but in the
interests of consensus:
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
+1 punt bylines to an extension
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
- Robin Cover
On 24/5/05 9:02 AM, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is mostly when there are author(s) without contributor in
the feed (resp. entry) and contributor(s) without author in the entry
(resp. feed).
Is the entry author-less (resp. contributor-less) or is it inheriting
the feed
On 24 May 2005, at 12:31 am, Eric Scheid wrote:
Second area of concern with writing the spec text - the atom:source
element
needs to be mentioned in the text about inheritance. My
understanding is
that inheritance draws first from atom:source (if it exists), and then
atom:feed.
I'd say
On 5/23/05, Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/5/05 9:56 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(unrelated question: what's with this plus sign atomLink+ in the
atom:source production?)
well spotted.
That means oneOrMore, while * means zeroOrMore. + is accurate
for format-08,
On 24/5/05 10:36 AM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/05, Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24/5/05 9:56 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(unrelated question: what's with this plus sign atomLink+ in the
atom:source production?)
well spotted.
That means
If an atom:entry is copied from one feed into another feed, then the
source atom:feed's metadata (all child elements of atom:feed other
than the atom:entry elements) MAY be preserved within the copied entry
by adding an atom:source child element, if it is not already present
in the entry, and
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-24 01:40]:
Consider too a feed which has both authors and contributors at
the feed level, an entry with neither authors or contributors
(simple case of inheritance), and another entry with a single
author and no contributors (does the entry inherit the
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 07:00]:
Unfortunately, among those who want to change the current
setup, we do not observe consensus on the subject of what to
change them to. Near as we can tell, people want to make
atom:author plural, some want to nuke atom:contributor and
others
On 23/5/05 3:22 PM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antone Roundy suggests:
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
To me that sounds like the simplest thing that can possibly work,
and looks like it hits the 80/20 mark. It also requires
22 matches
Mail list logo
