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 three-level chain of inheritance has always been > what we've intended. There was, however, a great deal of discussion at one > point about how to actually write the words. Thus, I agree that it is > largely an editorial change; however, you might expect some controversy over > particular word choices. Give it a shot and let's see how folk respond. +1 > Note: There is more to authorship than just the inheritance issue. I > think it also makes sense that a "feed-level author" should be considered to > be the author of the collection of items which is the feed. This authorship > is independent of authorship over any particular entry within the feed. Even > if the feed contains no items authored by the feed-level author, the > feed-level author is still author of the collection. This distinction would > be useful in describing linkblogs, and a variety of other feeds types that > are composed of entries collected from other feeds or multiple authors. +1 I think it would be best if we stated both of these effects close together in the specification so that it is obvious what the effect of providing atom:feed/atom:author is. We should also do a check on: atom:feed/atom:category atom:feed/atom:contributor atom:feed/atom:copyright to make sure that we are as clear as possible about whether or not they are inherited by entries, and whether or not they apply to the feed as a itself. -- Dave
