Subject: author requirements

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:12:32 -0500

> C. Things that potentially require WG action:
 >
 >    [[anchor24: What if
 >       there's a source-feed element? This is busted.  We should make
 >       author required for atom:feed and optional for atom:entry.  No
 >       inheritance co-constraints required.  --R.  Sayre]]
 >
 > Right, this seems broken on the surface.  Let's get some proposed
 > wordings.  On the other hand if we decide to override the editors and
 > put <atom:head> back, this goes away (right?)

Wrong. I'm not sure why you guys think entry/head/author serves a 
different purpose than entry/source-feed/author.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:55:22 -0700

> different purpose than entry/source-feed/author.

Here's the current wording:

    atom:entry elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
    unless, in an Atom Feed Document, the atom:feed element contains
    an atom:author element itself.  atom:entry elements MUST NOT
    contain more than one atom:author element.

There are two directions we can go:

    atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:author
    element.

or:

    atom:entry elements MUST contain exactly one atom:author element,
    unless the atom:entry contains an atom:source-feed element which
    contains an atom:author element, or, in an Atom Feed Document,
    the atom:feed element contains an atom:author element itself.
    atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:author
    element.

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:45:12 +0000

>    atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:author

That looks good. One problem with HeadInEntry is that it didn't specify 
this kind of inheritance. Some general purpose wording saying that when 
source-feed is present, it becomes the "feed" element that entry/feed 
dependence rules are evaulated against. Logically, it's the only was 
for compound feeds to work.

Graham

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:09:22 -0500

Graham wrote:
> dependence rules are evaulated against. Logically, it's the only was for 
> compound feeds to work.

Is it important to preserve the option not to include feed/author? Has 
anyone ever seen an Atom 0.3 feed that takes advantage of this provision?

Robert Sayre