Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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. Such feeds would be completely useless in some apps, and therefore deserve to be tossed. PaceOptionalSummary simply enables an infinite loop of talk to the other guy about that responses to user questions, while PaceTextShouldBeProvided says that the tie goes to the aggregator. Kinda funny when you look at it that way, given the heated discussion on the subject. They could both be rolled into a single PaceWhoYouGonnaBlame and save everyone unnecessary reading. -- Roger Benningfield
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 to both PaceOptionalSummary and PaceTextShouldBeProvided. 1. The pace's rationale has claims which have already been refuted by Robert and others in the discussion on optional summaries: Encourage interoperability and accessibility this rationale has no merit, imo. 2. It has a bias that is squarely aimed at title only feeds, which is the outcome of PaceOptionalSummary Unfortunately, there are also existence proofs of title-only feeds it clearly takes a shot across the bows of PaceOptionalSummary. 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. we have a decision making legacy that speaks for itself, this is not demstrated to be a special case we ought to cater for. 4. It would appear to contradict PaceOptionalSummary by highlighted that legal usage as bad practice. That's contradictory in spirit, and personally speaking it's the kind of wording and deliberate vagueness that infuriates me about software specs. fFutzing about like this is showing poor form to the users of the spec 2 alone should be enough for you. Technically these things are not in contradiction, in sprit they are. I'm on the record already here: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14535.html cheers Bill
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 the proposal. It is part of the rationale. - Sam Ruby
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 PaceOptionalSummary takes. They are not compatible. In fact, let's get the chairs to clarify this. 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 to both PaceOptionalSummary and PaceTextShouldBeProvided. 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 out what language change it is actually saying is necessary. Basically, allowing title-only feeds seems OK to me, and encouraging people to provide text also seems OK to me, so what's the problem? In fact, these seem pretty orthogonal; it seems quite plausible that one could like either of these without liking both. -Tim
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 out what language change it is actually saying is necessary. That section says is If PaceOptionalSummary is 'accepted', this Pace changes summary to SHOULD. That's OK to propose, but you can't accept both of them. They conflict. 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? Basically, allowing title-only feeds seems OK to me, and encouraging people to provide text also seems OK to me, so what's the problem? Current spec: MUST contain a summary after PaceOptionalSummary: MAY contain a summary after PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD contain a summary So what you're actually objecting to is the last part of the Pace before the Impacts section, that wants 4.1.2 to say that summary SHOULD be there if Content is absent. Or am I missing something? -Tim
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 used to account for an absent content element. Basically, allowing title-only feeds seems OK to me, and encouraging people to provide text also seems OK to me, so what's the problem? Current spec: MUST contain a summary after PaceOptionalSummary: MAY contain a summary after PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD contain a summary So what you're actually objecting to is the last part of the Pace before the Impacts section, that wants 4.1.2 to say that summary SHOULD be there if Content is absent. Yes. If that SHOULD goes through, it becomes OK to write an Atom Processor that catches fire when summary and content are both absent. That is not what the folks who supported PaceOptionalSummary were advocating. They conflict. Robert Sayre
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 face of it, I am inclined to be +1 to both PaceOptionalSummary and PaceTextShouldBeProvided. 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 out what language change it is actually saying is necessary. That section says is If PaceOptionalSummary is 'accepted', this Pace changes summary to SHOULD. That's OK to propose, but you can't accept both of them. They conflict. Basically, allowing title-only feeds seems OK to me, and encouraging people to provide text also seems OK to me, so what's the problem? Current spec: MUST contain a summary after PaceOptionalSummary: MAY contain a summary after PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD contain a summary Robert Sayre
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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 PaceOptionalSummary simply says remove the MUST, it doesn't say what it should be replaced with. Graham
Re: PaceTextShouldBeProvided vs PaceOptionalSummary
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
