Sunday, May 22, 2005, 9:53:23 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
The draft hasn't changed for more than a month, while Tim and Paul
have been last-calling this thing for months now, and very little of
substance has transpired since then. The document has been quite
stable since March 12th, when
I am concerned that the requirement:
atom:feed elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
UNLESS all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements
contain an atom:author element.
...suggests that some sort of inheritance goes on, but such a
mechanism isn't obvious and
On 5/22/05, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am concerned that the requirement:
atom:feed elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
UNLESS all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements
contain an atom:author element.
...suggests that some sort of
On 5/22/05, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comment from Robert in there saying that inheritance needed
explaining, but I can't see where this issue was resolved.
Oops. Here's the discussion:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13793.html
Here's what the chairs said:
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:04:41 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/22/05, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comment from Robert in there saying that inheritance needed
explaining, but I can't see where this issue was resolved.
Oops. Here's the discussion:
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:04:41 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Besides, no one indicated they were unhappy with that text in WG last
call or IETF last call.
Sorry, I was too busy reviewing the 23 additional Paces that were
proposed during IETF Last-Call to have time to sufficiently review the
On 5/22/05, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We may of thought that we were finished, but it is clear that we were
not ready for Last-Call: neither the Working Group, nor the IETF had
sufficient time to review the specification because it has been in
flux with proposals.
You know,
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
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 10:25:29 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
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
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
On May 22, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
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. :)
Tim Bray wrote:
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
Not me (you'd have to tell me that inheritance applies at all, not the
other way around). But the rules must be consistent for the elements
that appear at both levels.
cheers
Bill
Tim Bray wrote:
The intent seems pretty clear; entry-level overrides source-level
overrides feed-level, but it seems like we should say that.
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
I believe that this three-level chain of inheritance has always been
what
Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
Not me (you'd have to tell me that inheritance applies at all, not the
other way around). But the rules must be consistent for the elements
that appear at both levels.
Quick
On 5/22/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
The intent seems pretty clear; entry-level overrides source-level
overrides feed-level, but it seems like we should say that.
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
I believe that this
Monday, May 23, 2005, 12:20:21 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
The intent seems pretty clear; entry-level overrides source-level
overrides feed-level, but it seems like we should say that.
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
I believe that this
On 23/5/05 6:01 AM, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should add language that specifically states that the value of
atom:feed/atom:author is not a shortcut for specifying
atom:entry/atom:author - if that is what we mean.
+1 for disambiguating either way.
e.
On 5/22/05, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We may of thought that we were finished, but it is clear that we were
not ready for Last-Call: neither the Working Group, nor the IETF had
sufficient time to review the specification because it has been in
flux with proposals.
I can't agree
On 23/5/05 8:53 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I was startled just now to realize that there's nothing there
to say that the feed-level author applies to entry-level when it's
not specified at the entry level. The intent seems pretty clear;
entry-level overrides source-level
19 matches
Mail list logo
