On May 5, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Everything in the proposal section is fine with me, as well. It's that "Notes" section that's the problem.
Note: I totally fail to understand the "Notes" bit at the end of PaceTextShouldBeProvided. It is underspecified to the extent that I can't figure out what language change it is actually saying is necessary.
That section says is "If PaceOptionalSummary is 'accepted', this Pace changes summary to SHOULD." That's OK to propose, but you can't accept both of them. They conflict.
No it doesn't, it says something about inserting the phrase "...is either not present or..." which, by the way, I don't understand. Are we looking at the same document?
Basically, allowing title-only feeds seems OK to me, and encouraging people to provide text also seems OK to me, so what's the problem?
Current spec: MUST contain a summary after PaceOptionalSummary: MAY contain a summary after PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD contain a summary
So what you're actually objecting to is the last part of the Pace before the "Impacts" section, that wants 4.1.2 to say that summary SHOULD be there if Content is absent. Or am I missing something? -Tim
