Subject: Getting atom:source right

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 15:13:06 -0600

> 4.2.11  The "atom:source" Element
>
>    If an atom:entry is copied from one feed into another feed, then the
>    source atom:feed's metadata (all child elements of atom:feed other
>    than the atom:entry elements) MAY be preserved within the copied
>    entry by adding an atom:source child element, if it is not already
>    present in the entry, and including some or all of the source feed's
>    metadata elements as the atom:source element's children.  Such
>    metadata SHOULD be preserved if the source atom:feed contains any of
>    the child elements atom:author, atom:contributor, atom:copyright, or
>    atom:category and those child elements are not present in the source
>    atom:entry.

Should we add something like this?

      If an atom:entry element already containing an atom:source element
      is copied to another feed, the contents of the atom:source element
      MUST NOT be replaced with metadata from the containing atom:feed.

That's implied by "if it is not already present in the entry", but it 
may be best to be more explicit.

---

From: "Bob Wyman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:07:42 -0400

Antone Roundy wrote:
> Should we add something like this [to 4.2.11]?

	+1.

	As Antone suggests, we're probably best off being as explicit as
possible with this stuff. 

		bob wyman

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:04:10 +0200

>       MUST NOT be replaced with metadata from the containing atom:feed.

I think I understand what you want, but I'm having difficulties reading  
the paragraph. If I misunderstand (or don't undersand it at all ;-) it,  
perhaps readers and implementors of the Atom spec. will as well?

> may be best to be more explicit.

I agree. But I'm not sure the intended message is communicated clearly  
enough. But that might just be me. :-\

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:31:59 +0100

On 2 May 2005, at 10:13 pm, Antone Roundy wrote:

> That's implied by "if it is not already present in the entry", but  
> it may be best to be more explicit.

Yes, but I agree about the lack of clarity with this particular wording.

Graham

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:53:07 -0600

On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, at 09:04  AM, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 23:13:06 +0200, Antone Roundy 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I think I understand what you want, but I'm having difficulties 
> reading the paragraph. If I misunderstand (or don't undersand it at 
> all ;-) it, perhaps readers and implementors of the Atom spec. will as 
> well?
>
The point is that atom:summary is to contain the metadata from the feed 
in which the entry originated.  When an entry is copied form the 
originating feed, the feeds metadata is put into atom:summary inside 
the entry.  When the same entry is copied from the second feed to a 
third feed, it already has atom:summary, so the metadata from the 
second feed MUST NOT be copied into atom:summary, which would replace 
the metadata from the originating feed.  Which part of this is unclear 
from the text above?  Would this be better?

       MUST NOT be replaced.

This simplifies the sentence, and contains all the critical 
information.  I personally don't like it as much, because it feels a 
little incomplete, and it doesn't call out the metadata that people 
would be most likely to erroneously replace it with.  But I wouldn't 
complain if we went with this.