On 7 May 2005, at 04:53, James Tauber wrote:
In the case where there is an "alternate" I think this is correct, but it:
1. highlights the inaccuracy of the word "alternate" 2. doesn't address the case where there is no link alternate
James
I agree.
My definition is making me wonder whether I should not in fact accept that
link alternate is a MUST.
There may be ways of tweaking the definition which mean that I don't need to
come to that conclusion. Or perhaps one can think of entries without an alternate
as speaking about themselves?
I agree also that the definition would make it more appropriate to have an
<about>...</about> node (or something similar) to highlight its importance.
A good one sentence definition can help a lot in conveying the
complexities of something. As a result I may feel inclined to change my positions on
matters elsewhere to have them in accord with the definition, as opposed to making
the definition more complicated. It all depends. But I am pretty sure that a clear
definition of a core element of the spec would really help in spreading the understanding
of what we are doing.
On 06/05/2005, at 12:46 PM, Henry Story wrote:
Some have been clamoring for a good definition of an entry. Here is one I have thought of recently.
An Atom Entry is a resource (identified by atom:id) whose representations
(atom:entry) describe the state of a web resource at a time
(the link alternate)
