At 12:51 PM -0400 4/29/05, Sam Ruby wrote:
Encourage interoperability and accessibility by suggesting that key textual constructs be both present and non-empty.
+1
As these requirements are only SHOULDs, no feeds which are currently valid will become invalid. However, those that follow these suggestions will find that their feeds are useful to a wider audience than they would be otherwise.
Folks here know that I'm not a big fan of SHOULDs where a MUST or a MAY would be better. In this case, I can see that the changes suggested fit the classical IETF definition of SHOULD. We can't force you to put in real text because there really might be nothing for you to say without just making up gibberish, but you should really try hard to say something, even if it is repetitive. You don't know which locations the recipient is going to be looking in, as we have seen from some of the WG traffic in the past week.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
