Tim Bray wrote:
PaceTextShouldBeProvided
+1 from Ruby, explicit -1's from Sayre and de hÓra. However, taking this and PaceOptionalSummary together, it seems clear that the WG generally believes the following:
- Title-only feeds are OK for data where that's really all you have.
- Failing to provide summaries when they could potentially exist is regrettable and should be discouraged.
- There are certain classes of software which will not be able to make use of content-light feeds, for example full-text indexers.
- It is not acceptable for software to fail (note "fail", as opposed to "not make full use of") just because the summary is missing.
There is lack of consensus in the WG as to whether RFC2119 "SHOULD" is an appropriate level of language to use in encouraging the provision of summaries.
Conclusion: This Pace is rejected. However, the editors are directed to include the following text in 4.2.13:
"Experience teaches that feeds which contain textual content are in general more useful than those which do not. There are certain classes of application, for example full-text indexers, which will be unable to make effective use of entries which do not contain text in either atom:summary or atom:content. Feed producers should be aware of these issues and are encouraged to include a meaningful atom:summary in entries lacking atom:content wherever possible. However, the absence of atom:summary is not an error and software MUST NOT fail to function correctly as a consequence of such an absence."
Much of the discussion of this pace centered around the proposed changes to section 4.1.2. However, there is more to this pace.
- Sam Ruby
