Tim Bray wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
This pace dropped the requirement for an alternate link. This pace dropped the requirement for a summary when content is not present.
Yes, because the WG has *never* voiced an opinion in favor of that constraint,
You are incorrect. There was an extended discussion, with Mark Pilgrim steadfastly refusing to let the hideous old multipart/alternate go until we had another proposal that had a good accessibility story.
I'm very familiar with that discussion, because I am the one who took the time to work through it, by parrying something like 20 insults.
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09362.html
There was a Pace, I forget the name, that discarded multipart/alternative and suggested multiple changes, including the requirement that there be summary if there's no content, and it clearly got better-than-rough consensus.
That would be http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceReformedContent3.
The list traffic around that shows a clear lack of consensus on this very topic, with many folks making the never-explained assertion that an entry without content or summary is somehow less-accessible to some group of people.
and we fail to meet the requirements of our charter for any definition of "syndication"that takes prior art into account.
Huh? The prior art was considered and the group decided to stiffen the historical rules; largely, as I said, in the interests of accessibility.
Robert Sayre
