Tim Bray wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOptionalSummary
0
As editor of the one the protocols cited in favour (HTTPLR) I'd like to clarify this position, especially as the debate around this issue has imo been emotionally charged; most recently there's been talk of inappropriateness and steamrolling. That encourages me to stay neutral.
The absence or otherwise of atom:summary causes no interoperability problems for that protocol; HTTPLR agents are not licensed to process summaries. The use of Atom in HTTPLR is arguably not a common usecase (today at least). Of the people I know implementing it, atom:summary has not come up as an issue. It appears to make no odds one way or another if atom:summary there or not empty or not.
Finally please note that HTTPLR is different from the other cases cited which might or might not be relevant to the IESG and ATOMPUB. First, it's a protocol, not a website. Second, it's not gone through the IETF process a la APP, though it will appear as an I-D around June of this year.
cheers Bill
