Sunday, May 22, 2005, 9:53:23 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> The draft hasn't changed for more than a month, while Tim and Paul
> have been last-calling this thing for months now, and very little of
> substance has transpired since then. The document has been quite
> stable since March 12th, when for
On 23/5/05 8:53 AM, "Tim Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I was startled just now to realize that there's nothing there
> to say that the feed-level author applies to entry-level when it's
> not specified at the entry level. The intent seems pretty clear;
> entry-level overrides source-l
On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We may of thought that we were finished, but it is clear that we were
> not ready for Last-Call: neither the Working Group, nor the IETF had
> sufficient time to review the specification because it has been in
> flux with proposals.
I can't ag
On 23/5/05 6:01 AM, "David Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should add language that specifically states that the value of
> atom:feed/atom:author is not a shortcut for specifying
> atom:entry/atom:author - if that is what we mean.
+1 for disambiguating either way.
e.
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 tha
On 5/22/05, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 th
Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
Not me (you'd have to tell me that inheritance applies at all, not the
other way around). But the rules must be consistent for the elements
that appear at both levels.
Quick followup:
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 w
Tim Bray wrote:
Anybody think this is anything more than an editorial change? -Tim
Not me (you'd have to tell me that inheritance applies at all, not the
other way around). But the rules must be consistent for the elements
that appear at both levels.
cheers
Bill
On May 22, 2005, at 3:10 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
If it is intended to be inherited, can we still add text saying that
it is inherited as an editorial change?
We can clarify and improve the draft to your heart's delight. It's
unproductively revisiting old arguments that bothers me. :)
Yeah,
On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, are you saying that we're required to explicitly reverse any
> > requirement present in previous drafts?
>
> No, we're required to state the situation one way or the other. The
> current draft doesn't say that author is inherited, so I
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 10:25:29 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that the current text is very misleading. The fact that at one
>> point inheritance has been condoned or suggested by previous drafts
>> (including the widely implemented pre-I
On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that the current text is very misleading. The fact that at one
> point inheritance has been condoned or suggested by previous drafts
> (including the widely implemented pre-IETF public draft), but now we
> have removed the suggestion, b
On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We may of thought that we were finished, but it is clear that we were
> not ready for Last-Call: neither the Working Group, nor the IETF had
> sufficient time to review the specification because it has been in
> flux with proposals.
You know,
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:04:41 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> comment from Robert in there saying that inheritance needed
>> explaining, but I can't see where this issue was resolved.
> Oops. Here's the discussion:
> http://www.imc.org/atom-synta
Sunday, May 22, 2005, 7:04:41 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> Besides, no one indicated they were unhappy with that text in WG last
> call or IETF last call.
Sorry, I was too busy reviewing the 23 additional Paces that were
proposed during IETF Last-Call to have time to sufficiently review the
specif
On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comment from Robert in there saying that inheritance needed
> explaining, but I can't see where this issue was resolved.
Oops. Here's the discussion:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13793.html
Here's what the chairs said:
http:
On 5/22/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am concerned that the requirement:
>
> > atom:feed elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
> > UNLESS all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements
> > contain an atom:author element.
>
> ...suggests that some sort
I am concerned that the requirement:
> atom:feed elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
> UNLESS all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements
> contain an atom:author element.
...suggests that some sort of inheritance goes on, but such a
mechanism isn't obvious and i
19 matches
Mail list logo
