Sorry for the delay in responding. I disagree that feed elements apply
to the feed document and not the feed itself. I believe that both the
spirit and letter of the specification make it clear that feed
elements are metadata about the feed not the document, and the typical
behaviour of
On 1/14/07, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't just say
that the license extension inherits and
expect every implementation out there to implement that.
You'd need an Atom 2.0 to do that: either support for
must-understand (which was rejected from Atom 1.0),
or a special feed
All,
The Atom license extension is continuing to move forward. Based on some
last call comments that were received, I have decided to add two
additional items to the spec:
1. An equivalence rule for license URIs
2. A IANA registry for common license URIs
Over the next week I'll be working
On 1/14/07, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Atom doesn't
describe the processing model of Atom
documents explicitly enough for me to infer much about
the semantics of atom:source. ...
Needing to [use atom:source] is a good sign that you
are abusing feed elements to carry entry metadata
On 1/14/07, David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that it is
important to distinguish between feeds
and feed documents, and this is why I think that feed
level inheritance of licenses should be dropped as it is
incompatible with Atom.
Inheritance can't be incompatible with Atom since
