Great. LGTM -- assuming those changes. bob wyman
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM, James Snell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> [snip] > >> I disagree. There may be no source feed at all... and therefore no > >> reason for atom:source > > > > > > You are, of course, correct. How about saying that "if there is a source > > feed, you MUST provide an atom:source" ??? > > > >> > > That works for me. >
