Yes. If that SHOULD goes through, it becomes OK to write an Atom
Processor that catches fire when summary and content are both absent.
Robert: Nothing about either pace will make it not OK to drop
content- and summary-free entries on the floor, or come to a full stop
when they're encountered.
Tim Bray wrote:
Speaking not as the chair but as an interested WG member, I read them
about eight times and I do not understand why they are in conflict.
Someone please explain, as simply as possible, what the problem is,
because I just don't get it. On the face of it, I am inclined to be +1
Bill de hÓra wrote:
3. It's the kind of spec text we have rejected in the past as
impletation specific and/or best current practice guidance:
those that follow these suggestions will find that their feeds are
useful to a wider audience than they would be otherwise.
Um, that text is not part of
On May 5, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
I don't see a conflict there. What's wrong with accepting two similar
paces because one corrects the flaws in the other?
Graham, that's just not true. It wasn't called
PaceSummariesAreNotRequired, was it? It materially changes the only
action
On May 5, 2005, at 3:52 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Everything in the proposal section is fine with me, as well. It's that
Notes section that's the problem.
Note: I totally fail to understand the Notes bit at the end of
PaceTextShouldBeProvided. It is underspecified to the extent that I
can't figure
On 5/5/05, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No it doesn't, it says something about inserting the phrase ...is
either not present or... which, by the way, I don't understand. Are
we looking at the same document?
Ah, it's been updated since I last looked. The proposed text for 4.1.2
didn't
On 5/5/05, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking not as the chair but as an interested WG member, I read them
about eight times and I do not understand why they are in conflict.
Someone please explain, as simply as possible, what the problem is,
because I just don't get it. On the
On 6 May 2005, at 4:26 am, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD have a summary
PaceOptionalSummary: MAY have a summary
No, Robert:
Current situation: MUST have a summary
PaceOptionalSummary: No explicit opinion
PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD have a summary
On 5/5/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PaceOptionalSummary simply says remove the MUST, it doesn't say
what it should be replaced with.
What part of OPTIONAL don't you understand?
Robert Sayre
