Graham 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.
But yet you can make the judgement that people supported a misleading pace. This does not seem to be a reasonable or useful argument to make.
cheers Bill
