Frank Ellermann wrote: > James M Snell wrote: > >> let me know if this is an improvement > > Hard to judge, now that I know what it's supposed to > do it's "obvious"... :-) I think it's clearer now: > ;-) > Jane's feed is "by+nc", the example entry is "by", and > so a commercial service can copy this entry as long as > the author (Jane) is credited. > > If that's correct I got it. Unrelated minor point, you > have "MUST NOT contain more than one with the same > combination of href and type attribute values." > Yes, that's correct. > Is that the same as "more than one license relation with > the same combination of href and type attribute values > is pointless" ? If yes you could eliminate the MUST NOT. > > ...or maybe not, I just see that RFC 4287 has a similar > MUST NOT about rel="alternate" (that's even the default > relation), odd. > Yeah, a primary goal of mine is to remain consistent with rfc4287. - James _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf