On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 12:10:33AM +0100, Graham wrote: > > So you wouldn't support a proposal that removed a required element > without explaining what it's absence meant (eg PaceAtomSummary), > 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)?
There's a difference between atom:summary and atom:link. The first is a product of the RESOURCE the entry is pointing to. The lack of a summary in the entry does not necessarily imply that the RESOURCE has no summary, only that no summary exists in this entry. The presence of an empty summary is a statement that the summary "exists", but is empty. The second is a product of the FEED: here's a link that has something to do with the feed itself. The feed is the sole authority on things (meta data) related to the feed. The absence of an alternate link and the presence of an "empty" link are BOTH statements that no alternate link exists. One can not reasonably infer that the lack of a link is somehow the feed being uncommunicative about its own state. There is insufficient difference between the two to mean anything significant to software/readers. It seems most reasonable to me to simply allow the lack of a <link> where it's reasonable for there to be no link. The presence of a "no link" <link> provides no additional information than the omission would. This is not the same as the summary, where the feed may not be the authority on the resource it's pointing to. David -- == David Nesting WL7RO Fastolfe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fastolfe.net/ == fastolfe.net/me/pgp-key A054 47B1 6D4C E97A D882 C41F 3065 57D9 832F AB01
