nsidered to apply to the entry.
>
... but no similar text is to be found against the spec for atom:author or
atom:contributor.
I do see this ...
>atom:entry elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
>unless the atom:entry contains an atom:source element which contains
On Feb 3, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Norman Walsh wrote:
I find the constraint that an atom:feed or atom:entry can contain at
most one atom:contributor a little odd. Suppose Tom, Dick, and Harry
work on an entry, why can only two of them get credit (one as author
and one as contributor). Why am I not
Norman Walsh wrote:
I find the constraint that an atom:feed or atom:entry can contain at
most one atom:contributor a little odd. Suppose Tom, Dick, and Harry
work on an entry, why can only two of them get credit (one as author
and one as contributor). Why am I not allowed to indicate that they
I find the constraint that an atom:feed or atom:entry can contain at
most one atom:contributor a little odd. Suppose Tom, Dick, and Harry
work on an entry, why can only two of them get credit (one as author
and one as contributor). Why am I not allowed to indicate that they
each contributed to the
> atom:head elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:contributor element.
> atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:contributor element.
they look like a copy/pasto, especially since above those lines there is
> & atomContributor*
e.
[corrected typo]
The semantics of atom:contributor weren't obvious to me. Is this
correct:
atom:feed/atom:head/atom:author is a syntactic default for all entries
that are missing an author.
atom:feed/atom:head/atom:contributor is a set of regular contributors
and authors of a feed,
The semantics of atom:contributor weren't obvious to me. Is this
correct:
atom:feed/atom:head/atom:author is a syntactic default for all entries
that are missing an author.
atom:feed/atom:head/atom:contributor is a set of regular contributors
and authors of a feed, which may or may not
