> That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the format to your app. Robert: Seriously, dude. C'mon.
I don't care what little slap-fight you want to have with Sam, or Graham, or whoever else you figure is wronging the sublime rightness of your position. That's your thing, and welcome to it. You're not the first one to feel like "consensus" led Atom somewhere it had no business going. If you want to sit around and bitch about it, I'll might even join in. I was most unhappy with how things went in the XML-RPC vs. REST debate, for example. I've moved on, but I can at least sympathize. But you asked a question, and I answered it. Honestly, straightforwardly, and without an weasel-words. I did not ask anyone to tailor anything to anything. Try that silly crap with others if you must, but spare me. > I've > gotten feedback from embedded device developers complaining that XHTML > requires them to do more parsing than their app can handle, for little > practical benefit (for them). Note that we're also giving them the > short end of the stick with this requirement. If their embedded devices can't easily produce XHTML, then they don't have to do so. If their devices can't easily consume XHTML, they can either strip it or drop it. Again, the one thing Atom actually brings to the table over RSS is that content is clearly flagged. So where's the problem? (Or did someone slip something into 08 that says summaries must be XHTML?) > This is the assertion I have a problem with, and the opinions > expressed by others echo my gripe. Which part is the assertion that's causing you trouble? 'Cause half is in the charter, and the other half is one of those obvious things that Paul referenced. > Well, now we're just back to the sorts of feeds that are supposedly > perfectly ok on the condition that they contain an empty summary > element. Again, I support a SHOULD on summary. Not just adding an empty element... allowing publishers to drop it entirely, as long as they're aware they're doing something that will have an impact on the primary functionality of feed-consuming applications. Not that I think SHOULD is a good idea in this case. I just don't see the point in arguing about it incessantly, and SHOULD covers most of the bases. -- Roger Benningfield
