David Nesting wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:46:21PM -0600, Antone Roundy wrote:
The problem we have, as I pointed out earlier on the thread, is that we do not specify whether senders and receivers have the same SHOULD. I made one assumption, and Rob pointed out that I had made one different than he did.
So because both RFC 2119 and the current Atom draft are not explicit on this point, it is open either to varied interpretations, or at least to misinterpretations.
It is therefore up to us to clarify:
A summary SHOULD* be present in an entry. Implementations MUST be capable of processing entries with and without summaries (title-only feeds). This is not intended to suggest that implementations must do something useful with title-only entries.
* - The "implications" are that many processors will ignore or reject entries that do not have summaries, because the processor may place the emphasis of its processing on the summary. The feed as a whole is still valid, however, and it's expected that processors will handle entries that DO have summaries in the same feed as entries that do NOT.
Very nice.
- Sam Ruby
