On 28 Apr 2005, at 10:48 am, Bill de h�ra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few strenuous objections against title only feeds, on the balance consensus is for them. Is there something you're seeing that should make us think the current consensus level is inadequate?
Exactly because the two sides don't understand each other. I haven't seen any objections to "title only feeds" which you state is my and Sam's and other's position (we object to feeds that could have a summary included but don't). Similarly, it's not clear whether people on your side would equally support an alternate proposal to the current Pace.
Graham
