Tim Bray wrote:
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Graham wrote:
Can you post some links to examples of feeds you think are difficult to express in the current syntax? That would be considerably more constructive than whatever the hell that was.
What Rob wants is what he said in http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14157.html
I decided it would help if there was an actual Pace: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOptionalSummary
-1
Steamroll over me and others if you must, but I believe that title only feeds are more often that way due to an error of omission than by an explicit design choice. Enough so that it warrants someone explicitly saying "this summarly intentionally left blank", thus:
<summary/>
Given a way to express an intentional omission of a summary, this discussion changes from a discussion of use cases that allegedly are not supported, to one of whether tools like RNG grammars and feedvalidators can assist people who produce feeds in making their intents clear.
- Sam Ruby
