On 13/5/05 5:14 AM, "Julian Reschke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not? If the text says something to the effect of, for example,
>> "SHOULD include an atom:summary element unless there really is no
>> summary", then title-only feeds are fine.
>
> :-)
>
> Adding "unless there really is no summary" of course changes the meaning
> in a way that *is* compatible with title-only feeds. So can we change
> the spec to say that?
+1
except that excludes other scenarios...
For example:
<entry>
<id>...</id>
<updated>...</updated>
<title>...</title>
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="..."/>
</entry>
... where the resource/representation retrievable from @href would include
all the other elements (content, summary, author, category, copyright, etc
etc). Thus, the 'entry' really does have a summary, but it's just not in the
feed.
If someone wants to write an aggregator/reader which expects everything to
be right there in the feed, then sure, they can happily fail. Or more
properly, they can say "we don't support that functionality". Just like how
some web browsers don't support displaying images inline with the page ...
they don't say "ick, spit, nasty pages, broken pages, has evil <img> tags,
it's broken broken broken". No, they simply don't support that
functionality.
e.
