Tim Bray wrote:
Speaking not as the chair but as an interested WG member, I read them about eight times and I do not understand why they are in conflict. Someone please explain, as simply as possible, what the problem is, because I just don't get it. On the face of it, I am inclined to be +1 to both PaceOptionalSummary and PaceTextShouldBeProvided.
1. The pace's rationale has claims which have already been refuted by Robert and others in the discussion on optional summaries:
"Encourage interoperability and accessibility"
this rationale has no merit, imo.
2. It has a bias that is squarely aimed at title only feeds, which is the outcome of PaceOptionalSummary
"Unfortunately, there are also existence proofs of title-only feeds"
it clearly takes a shot across the bows of PaceOptionalSummary.
3. It's the kind of spec text we have rejected in the past as impletation specific and/or "best current practice" guidance:
"those that follow these suggestions will find that their feeds are useful to a wider audience than they would be otherwise."
we have a decision making legacy that speaks for itself, this is not demstrated to be a special case we ought to cater for.
4. It would appear to contradict PaceOptionalSummary by highlighted that legal usage as bad practice. That's contradictory in spirit, and personally speaking it's the kind of wording and deliberate vagueness that infuriates me about software specs. fFutzing about like this is showing poor form to the users of the spec
2 alone should be enough for you. Technically these things are not in contradiction, in sprit they are.
I'm on the record already here:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14535.html
cheers Bill
