Antone Roundy wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 24, 2005, at 01:52 AM, Henry Story wrote: >> Simplify, simplify. I am for removing all inheritance mechanisms... > > I would agree if we had a better way to avoid all the repetition that > would lead to. However, the only proposal[0] I can remember that would > have done so has been rejected by the WG. I'm torn on whether to bring > this up (I'd like to see it done, but it's getting late), but looking > at the reasons given for rejecting PacePersonRef [1][2][3], recent > discussion of author, contributor and inheritance suggests that the > opposition may have been mistaken. See also [4].
I wasn't there at the time PacePersonRef was proposed. Here's what I'd have said if I were: -1 to dropping inheritance mechanism, this leads to repetitions of atom:author and atom:contributor in each entry +1 to id references as a way to allow "factorization" of people on one place and thus saves some bytes by preventing the repetition of the Person metadata (it might reveal even much better later when there will be extensions to the Person constructs, e.g. FOAF, which might be quite verbose). +0 on whether to use an atom:people container. I'd way prefer clear and clean inheritance definition to repeating metadata all the way down, even if the metadata uses references to metadata elements defined elsewhere. -- Thomas Broyer
