On Jan 6, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Richard Salz wrote:
I don't like usurping the "human-readable" intent of atom:content.
I don't think the spec, either explicitly or implicitly, says that atom:content ought necessarily to be human-readable. It does give specific guidance on what to do when it's not (provide some guidance in atom:summary). I suspect that mainstream consumer feed-readers are smart enough to simply bypass atom:content if it's in a format they don't understand. So my instinct would be to use atom:content -Tim
