On 5/5/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
Ah, it's been updated since I last looked. The proposed text for 4.1.2 didn't used to account for an absent content element. > >> 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. Yes. If that SHOULD goes through, it becomes OK to write an Atom Processor that catches fire when summary and content are both absent. That is not what the folks who supported PaceOptionalSummary were advocating. They conflict. Robert Sayre
