Graham wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005, at 10:31 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
My opinion is that ~10 WG members are currently clearly stating their
belief that summary/content are optional.
You should make clear that most of those people supported a misleading
Pace that didn't clearly state its side-effects
On 27 Apr 2005, at 5:28 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Proposal for thinking about: to simplify the spec, atom:summary
should either be a MUST in all cases or a MAY in all cases. If it is
just semantic like atom:category, it should be a MAY. If it is
inherently valuable like atom:title, it should be a
Well said, Paul; this articulates the reasons for a profiling mechanism
much more effectively than I ever did.
Cheers,
On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
A few brief notes for the WG to chew on.
- Literal interpretation of 2119 for a document format such as Atom
would make nearly
At 6:47 PM +0100 4/27/05, Graham wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005, at 5:28 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Proposal for thinking about: to simplify the spec, atom:summary
should either be a MUST in all cases or a MAY in all cases. If it
is just semantic like atom:category, it should be a MAY. If it is
inherently
On Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 05:11 PM, Graham wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005, at 10:31 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
My opinion is that ~10 WG members are currently clearly stating their
belief that summary/content are optional.
You should make clear that most of those people supported a misleading
Pace
