On 4/26/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Graham wrote: > > > > The pace as written newly allows the omission of a summary and content > > on the whim of the publisher.
That's right. > > I'm within my rights as a > > consumer to reject title-only feeds as not worth bothering with (before > > you condemn this as an arbitrary decision, bear in mind the current Atom > > spec makes the same judgement). It is arbitrary. My point is that the spec does not reflect consensus in this working group or help interop. You're within your rights to reject anything, you just want the spec to back you up, and that's ridiculous. > > The atom spec would not give publishers > > fair warning of this. This is why I think it makes more sense as a > > "SHOULD" requirement. > > Well stated. I'd also add that apparently summary SHOULD be non empty > in all of the cases where it is currently required as well as one new > case: the case where the content is empty. Nonsense. Never. There are plenty of people here disagreeing with you. Robert Sayre
