On 4/27/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27 Apr 2005, at 10:31 pm, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > My opinion is that ~10 WG members are currently clearly stating their > > belief that summary/content are optional. > > You should make clear that most of those people supported a misleading > Pace that didn't clearly state its side-effects beyond making > feeds-where-no-title-is-available legal. Whether or not they support > the general position that "summary/content are optional" is not for you > to make.
On 4/27/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Apr 2005, at 1:41 am, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > Sorry Graham, my conclusion is perfectly reasonable. > > It fucking is not. The people +1ed a specific Pace with a particular > purpose. Arguing that you therefore have support for a general position > is totally disingenuous. Well, Graham, all we can really talk about is what the Pace says. It's fairly clear. The fact that those opposing it didn't take the time to read it or the spec is not my problem, nor does it indicate disingenuousness of any sort on my part. If someone were looking for that, they could go back through the archives and look at the arguments of the 2 or 3 people that seem to want this argument to continue. They keep changing, don't they? Those 2 or 3 people are lucky that I pointed out they might want to close the front door before they put their tinfoil hats on. Robert Sayre
