James Snell wrote:
> [1] The relationship [between license and atom:right] is
> subtle, but important ...
> [2] I specifically wanted to differentiate the two. ...
> [3] The two serve different, but related, purposes. The
> two should not contradict each other. If they do,
> consumers must go back to the content publisher to
> resolve the problem.
Given the subtle differences, the claimed importance of the
differences, and their supposed utility, I would strongly suggest that these
points should be clearly stated in the ID itself. It is highly unlikely that
readers of an eventual RFC are going to universally come here and read the
illuminating messages in the mailing list archive. Thus, the subtle
distinctions that you see are highly likely to be lost once the RFC is
published -- unless you document them. Also, it is more likely that
reviewers will be able to make more informed judgments if these distinctions
are clearly documented in the ID text.
bob wyman
