Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/27/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
If they nest a content-plus-plus inside atom:content, they wouldn't have to include that summary, right?
My recollection of the consensus of the decision to nuke PaceNukeMultipart apparently is flawed, as I can't find any email discussion that backs up what I seem to remember. Judging by the text in rationale listed in PaceOptionalSummary, I gather that the author of that Pace came to a similar conclusion.
Simply put: my recollection was that we were successful in killing PaceNukeMultipart with the argument that every entry would have some displayable text (either plain, html, or xhtml).
That's pretty much orthogonal to the discussion we are having here (i.e., if an entry does not have any summary or content, then it doesn't discriminate - it is equally as inaccessible to everybody); but if that was the actual intent of the consensus, then the document should be updated to reflect that. Furthermore, it would rule out the tunneling of hoffman:content-plus-plus as a dodge to avoid providing a summary that could be understood by existing clients.
- Sam Ruby
