Graham wrote:
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 believe I understand the positions quite well. But maybe you can convince me otherwise.
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).
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the positions held around dates - that providers ought to do the right thing for some definition of the right thing. Given that legacy, I'll claim it's clear we're not here to police what people ought do with feeds that could have a summary. The single argument along those lines that was sensible was to accessibility, which was eventually dispensed with.
And if Robert's assertion elsewhere ("Every bit of syndication code written since my.netscape.com in 1999 can deal with title-only feed") is remotely true , ie there's not large number of codebases that will break, then you can add innovation through standards to my list of objections to any position that makes summaries non-optional.
Similarly, it's not clear whether people on your side would equally support an alternate proposal to the current Pace.
Any number of such counter-factual arguments can be made (after all that's largely the point of introducing them). They won't convince me, nor are they a basis for getting our work done.
cheers Bill
