Paul Hoffman wrote:
- We have, unfortunately, linked the semantics of two or more elements together. atom:content and atom:summary are linked because of their semantics (if you don't have a readable content, you MUST/SHOULD/MAY have a summary).
- We have, fortunately, not required linked semantics for extensions. If I came out with hoffman:content-plus-plus, I can't assume that whatever linkage there is between atom:summary and atom:content will apply to my extension. But, of course, if someone considers hoffman:content-plus-plus to be like atom:content, they may *want* the same linkages.
Actually, that's one of the key reasons why I like the MUST for summary. If somebody invents a popular hoffman:content-plus-plus, then feeds that include it lieu of atom:content will need to include a human readable summary that can be used by existing clients.
- Sam Ruby
