On Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 05:11 PM, Graham wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005, at 10:31 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:I didn't find the Pace misleading, and support the position that summary/content are optional.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 Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:This is definitely the most convincing argument I've heard for requiring the summary. But it doesn't make it a MUST for me. If hoffman:content-plus-plus gets popular enough for this to matter, and publishers publish a feed with that element, no atom:content, and no atom:summary, and don't publish a variant with one or both of those, then either we've really missed the boat with this spec or Paul has invented something so revolutionary and great that old apps deserve to be obsolete and unsupported. I think this goes just a little beyond the limits of what we need to foresee and ensure we're ready for.- 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.
I know it wouldn't be enforcable, but in some imaginary world, the bullet point that PaceOptionalSummary proposes removing could be replace by "the atom:entry element contains no atom:content element, but does contain an extension element that carries the content of the entry". I wouldn't be opposed to that.
But back to the real world...
On Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 04:35 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
So.. can we agree on SHOULD?
I could live with it SHOULD or MAY.
