* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-24 15:15]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > * Thomas Broyer [2005-05-24 09:05]: > >> c) > >> feed: > >> author: A > >> contributor: B > >> entry: > >> contributor: C > [...] > >> c) The entry inherits the author but overrides the > >> contributor. I'm also open to considering it invalid. > [...] > > Effectively, I am proposing: > > > > A non-empty set of atom:entry/atom:author overrides any set > > of atom:feed/atom:author and atom:feed/atom:contributor. > > > > atom:contributor may only appear if ../atom:author is also > > given. > > If you just consider c) to be invalid, you can go with: > > A non-empty set of both atom:entry/atom:author and > atom:entry/atom:contributor overrides any set of both > atom:feed/atom:author and atom:feed/atom:contributor.
That seems to allow entries with contributors, but no author. You need to be more precise. > or > > If an atom:entry has neither an atom:author nor an > atom:contributor child element, the author(s) of and > contributor(s) to the entry are those specified at the feed > level, that is, those appearing as children of an > atom:source or, if the atom:entry contains no atom:source > child element, those appearing as children of the atom:feed > element. > > Note that if an entry has no atom:author or > atom:contributor child but contains an atom:source child. > If the atom:source element contains no atom:author or > atom:contributor child, the entry has no author or > contributor. In such a case, the atom:author and > atom:contributor children of the atom:feed element don't > cascade into the atom:entry. > > (and again, excuse me for my English, it's not my mother tong) I think this clearly demonstrates why I opted for disallowing atom:contributor in absence of ../atom:author: it is difficult to explain. You need a lot of prose to express it. You also need more code and more grammar rules. To me, that raises flags that it’s too complex. Only the atom:content section of the specification contains restrictions on any single “aspect” which are not expressible in one or two sentences and cannot be understood in near isolation. > Please note that I am not proposing changing atom:author and > atom:contributor to atom:person with a role property. This is > just to make clearer my proposal of "considering atom:author's > and atom:contributor's" as a whole, not atom:author's in one > hand and atom:contributor's in the other hand". It would be much easier to explain your proposal if that were the case; and in that case I would be in favour. But we have two separate elements, and that’s not going to change… I’m not opting for the best possible solution; I’m trying to suggest something that, given the current state of the specification, will require the least changes for the most effect. > -0 to forbidding contributors without author at the feed level. Actually, me too. Banning feeds with only contributors does not make the actual documents any more precise, so conceptually I don’t like the restriction. But it makes everything that deals with the documents simpler, so I accept it. Regards, -- Aristotle
