Robert Sayre wrote:
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.
If you attempt to syndicate a contentless and summaryless entry, there will be people who drop it on the floor. It doesn't matter how many people write software that behaves otherwise, it is a reality that some will behave this way.
From RFC 2119:
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
I am willing to concede that there are valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore the requirement for a summary. Are you willing to concede that there are implications to such a decision that must be understood and carefully weighed before chosing to omit a summary?
- Sam Ruby
