Re: Call for final Paces for consideration: deadline imminent

[David Powell <djpowell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sunday, February 6, 2005, 3:10:23 AM, you wrote:


> On 6/2/05 4:27 AM, "David Powell" <djpowell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Although we could keep the model we have (let's call it the 'mutable entries'
>> model), it isn’t  clear on a number of issues.  Eg, if an old version of an
>> entry has some property that isn’t  present in a newer version, does that
>> property still apply to the new instance?  The answer is presumably 'no' but
>> it isn't obvious from the spec.  Under a 'multiple instances' model, it would
>> be implicit.

> +1

> now go write a pace, and quickly

> e.

My plan was to take the Atom Concepts section of the document, add
"Entry Instance" to it, and do a bit of find/replacing to make it
clear that properties are properties of the instance and id is the id
of the Entry itself. Unfortunately there is no Atom Concepts section,
so I have not had time to do this. Currently the only definition of
what an entry or feed is in the informal introduction in the first
couple of sentences of the specification.

I think we should to insert an "Atom Concepts" section before the
current section 2 so that we can properly explain the important terms
in Atom before we can talk about how to represent them in the format.

Can we fix this as an editorial issue? There is enough confusion about
entries and ids amongst the working group, nevermind the readers.

-- 
Dave