On 28 Apr 2005, at 11:34 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
I haven't seen any objections to "title only feeds" which you state is my and Sam's and other's position (we object to feeds that could have a summary included but don't).
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the positions held around dates - that providers ought to do the right thing for some definition of the right thing. Given that legacy, I'll claim it's clear we're not here to police what people ought do with feeds that could have a summary.
Then what are we here to do? Would you support removing all of the other requirements from the spec?
And if Robert's assertion elsewhere ("Every bit of syndication code written since my.netscape.com in 1999 can deal with title-only feed") is remotely true , ie there's not large number of codebases that will break, then you can add innovation through standards to my list of objections to any position that makes summaries non-optional.
Every code base can also cope without dates or ids. We still require them.
Graham Parks
