On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:16:25 +0200, Eric Scheid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what if author in that example was renamed to byline (and specced to
be something other than a Person Construct), and some mechanism
introduced
to indicate the nature of the contribution by each of the
On 5/22/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21 May 2005, at 4:23 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
What document is impossible to express with the current syntax?
At this point, it's impossible to express anything, since several of
us are no longer sure what the meanings of atom:author and
On 22 May 2005, at 1:09 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
No longer sure? I suggest you never will be, since the meanings of the
elements are right there in the draft, as is the cardinality. It seems
reasonable to conclude you people can't read.
No, we just read it a different way to what you do, the
On 22/5/05 10:09 PM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What document is impossible to express with the current syntax?
At this point, it's impossible to express anything, since several of
us are no longer sure what the meanings of atom:author and
atom:contributor are meant to be.
No
On 5/22/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22 May 2005, at 1:09 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
No longer sure? I suggest you never will be, since the meanings of the
elements are right there in the draft, as is the cardinality. It seems
reasonable to conclude you people can't read.
No,
On 5/22/05, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems reasonable to conclude you people can't read.
This statement was completely inappropriate. Everyone will miss
requirements when they read a draft. The fact that everyone missed
this requirement, no matter how obvious it is under
Can you tell me, in those unusual cases when there is difficulty
in determining which instance came last, what the heck am I supposed to do
if the users expect to always see the most recent instance?
Bob: The same thing you'd do if you had two entries with matching ids
and modified
Tim Bray wrote:
A scan of the archives reveals no discussion; i.e. this rule is
something that predates the move to the IETF. I believe that (with a
bit of offline help) I can explain the reasoning though. We were trying
to borrow the Dublin Core semantics, wherein there is the notion of
On 21 May 2005, at 1:59 am, Tim Bray wrote:
Let me speak as a victim of a few years in the publishing-software
trenches: The semantics of author and contributor are a tangled
mess, a real swamp, and I don't think that Atom is going to do a
very good job of solving them. In particular, I
On 5/21/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can say that about anything. A flat list of people associated
with an entry is infinitely better than the weird one author/multiple
contributors model that doesn't offer a clear way to cope with the
common model of multiple co-authors.
Ben Lund
On 5/21/05, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
A scan of the archives reveals no discussion; i.e. this rule is
something that predates the move to the IETF. I believe that (with a
bit of offline help) I can explain the reasoning though. We were trying
to borrow
On 21 May 2005, at 3:30 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/21/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The appropriate way to decode this is Written by Graham with
contributions from Friend 1 and Friend 2
Lets decode your sample in the same way: Written by Yuri Fialko,
David Sandwell, Mark Simons
It's the impression I've had for nearly 2 years. If I'm wrong, then
fine, but there's nothing in the spec that says anything either way.
Well, there's nothing in the spec that explicitly separates
atom:author from lots of elements. Your impression is not in the spec.
I do think you're right
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/21/05, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also scanned the archives and found no consensus.
I can point you to many discussions surrounding atom:author.
Thanks for the offer, but I've already done that for myself. I don't
much care for the number of
On 22/5/05 12:25 AM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Lund is okay with the current draft:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15380.html
Why aren't you?
Because what you presented to him makes no sense against the current
draft.
[...]
Which makes no sense. The two
On 5/21/05, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is consensus and I missed it, I'll withdraw and apologise for
distracting the WG. If an IETF process wizard says it's too late now,
technically or in the spirit of things, I'll withdraw. If the WG makes
it known that at this point in
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-21 17:30]:
what if author in that example was renamed to byline (and
specced to be something other than a Person Construct),
+1, calling it author when that sort of usage is expected and
encouraged is a lie.
and some mechanism introduced to indicate
On 5/21/05, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-21 17:30]:
what if author in that example was renamed to byline (and
specced to be something other than a Person Construct),
What are you talking about? Please refrain from complaining your pet
On 22/5/05 2:51 AM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what if author in that example was renamed to byline (and specced to be
something other than a Person Construct), and some mechanism introduced to
indicate the nature of the contribution by each of the contributors?
What are you
Robert Sayre wrote:
I fully agree that other ways of arranging authors and contributors
are possible and reasonable, but no one has demonstrated a document
that format-08 can't cover.
The Atom Syndication Fformat spec has two authors and many contributors.
Limiting to one author, you can't
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-21 19:05]:
At this stage, changing the spec to suit religious preferences
would be extremely arrogant.
Please stop talking to people about process bullshit at one
occasion and turning around to chide others for at this stage
at the next.
Regards,
--
Thomas Broyer wrote:
+1 on allowing multiple atom:author
-1 to dropping atom:contributor
-1 to renaming atom:author
+1 to that.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
On 5/21/05, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-21 19:05]:
At this stage, changing the spec to suit religious preferences
would be extremely arrogant.
Please stop talking to people about process bullshit at one
occasion and turning around to
Eric Scheid wrote:
I'm +0.5 to all that ... the sticky problem is just how do we insert an
authorship string like Raggett, D, Hors, A, and I Jacobs into an entry,
and I'm -1 on using an extension for that since there is a $17 billion
industry already using feeds that really wants to be able to
On 5/21/05, Phil Ringnalda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Broyer wrote:
The Atom Syndication Fformat spec has two authors and many contributors.
Limiting to one author, you can't distinguish between the authors and
contributors.
Actually, no. It has one author, a corporation, or
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/21/05, Phil Ringnalda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, no. It has one author, a corporation, or similar entity, the
ATOMPUB Working Group, and two editors and many contributors. (Editorial
nit: -08 says it's a product of the Network Working Group, apparently
the
On 22/5/05 3:38 AM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with the example you gave is that it suggests that even entries
with just the one author/contributor would need two person constructs in the
entry, or maybe just the one ... either way it's confusing.
No, it doesn't. Why
On Saturday, May 21, 2005, at 04:08 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
You think you'll be able to disambiguate entries by
adding a more-specific date field, making for two date fields. I think
you can disambiguate entries by adding any number of extension fields.
That's great. Add extensions.
+1 --
Robert Sayre wrote:
atom:modified cannot be operationally distinguished from atom:updated.
Obviously, if people start shipping feeds with the same id and
atom:updated figure, it will be needed. There's no reason to
standardize it, though. We don't know how that would work.
The
The definition of atom:updated was explicitly and intentionally
crafted to permit the creation of multiple non-identical entries that shared
common atom:id and atom:updated values. Clearly, it was the intention of the
Working Group to permit this, otherwise the definition of
Robert Sayre wrote:
Here's the last time this discussion happened:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13276.html
Tim's point in the referenced mail supported the current definition
of atom:updated which provides a means for publishers to express their own
subjective opinions
On 5/21/05, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Objective metrics which can be clearly understood by both publishers and
readers must be used. In this case, the best objective measure to use is to
say that the change of one of more bits in the encoding or representation of
an entry should
Antone Roundy wrote:
Unless the need for this can be shown, and it can be shown that
an extension can't take care of it, I'm -1 on atom:modified.
The need is simple and I've stated it dozens of times... Given two
non-identical entries that share the same atom:id and the same
On Saturday, May 21, 2005, at 09:20 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:
Unless the need for this can be shown, and it can be shown that
an extension can't take care of it, I'm -1 on atom:modified.
The need is simple and I've stated it dozens of times...
...but is it a need or a
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-21 21:25]:
On 5/21/05, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-21 19:05]:
At this stage, changing the spec to suit religious
preferences would be extremely arrogant.
Please stop talking to people about
35 matches
Mail list logo
