On 5/9/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9 May 2005, at 6:48 pm, Bill de h�ra wrote: > > > I think this exercise is *critical* for any piece of markup that is > > going to move from mandatory to optional. Either way, we should pin > > down spec language around the optionality of alternate feed links, > > or consciously decide we're not going to pin it down. > > So you wouldn't support a proposal that removed a required element > without explaining what it's absence meant (eg PaceAtomSummary),
No, he consciously decided it wasn't worth pinning down, because there's no interop to be gained. Party foul for bringing this issue up in yet another thread, BTW. > because you'd prefer one that leaves it much less ambiguous (eg > PaceTextShouldBeProvided, which strongly encourages publishers to > only omit atom:summary when none exists)? I've read PaceTextShouldBeProvided, and I don't understand its rationale, but I can tell you there is absolutely nothing in the proposal section "which strongly encourages publishers to only omit atom:summary when none exists". All it says is that things might break if you don't include a summary or include empty text constructs. Robert Sayre
