On 4/28/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And of course we're going to have to fish some > sort of consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess.
That shouldn't be hard. I don't think the WG has ever been more decisive. If PaceOptionalSummary received 10 negative opinions, I'm quite sure the chairs would characterize it as "drowning in -1s". Are we "drowning in +1s" yet? Every bit of syndication code written since my.netscape.com in 1999 can deal with title-only feeds. There's your running code. The IETF process is designed get work done when a vocal minority of WG members makes a lot of noise about a given issue. In this case, the WG has let the minority present a series of arguments, and some of the arguments contradict previous ones. I think perhaps we've hit bottom. I'm pretty sure Graham just wrote that I couldn't use the 7-line PaceOptionalSummary, which made summaries and content optional by striking one line from the spec, to assert that the WG wanted to make summaries optional. This is so over, I can't believe it. I cannot believe we are entertaining this tripe. Robert Sayre
