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, we just read it a different way to what you do, the obvious way. > The idea that atom:autho and atom:contributor are independent is just > about a valid reading but completely counter-intuitive. There is a > problem here.
Yes, the problem is that you think you are going to 'get it right' if you continue to work on it. I favor the path suggested by Antone in his excellent thread 'I wanna go home'.[0] I don't agree with all of the resolutions, but they're not so bad, and they could be accomplished quickly. Absurd rehashing of dates and id arguments are not going to be resolved this year. Robert Sayre [0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15526.html
