Please be aware that Iâm not in any camp right now. Iâm still vacillating, trying to understand the implications of this issue. I am leaning against MUST, but thatâs not a done deal, and Iâm not at all sure about MAY vs SHOULD.
* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-04-28 16:05]: > Your SHOULD allows competitors to turn off their feeds at any > time, and point to the spec as justification. Does it? Doesnât SHOULD mean that it is perfectly within rights of the producer to drop the requested item on the floor? > Even worse, it could be "oh, some of their entries are buggy, > so we drop those." Now that, I could see (albeit not with that wording). By my reading of RFC2119, it is not entirely clear whether consumers would be required to process entries lacking both summary and content. Am I correct? In that case the problem lies in the asymmetry between producers and consumers of feeds; since the Atom spec adresses both, this could be clarified by adding that consumers MUST accept title-only entries, but of course, that would be implied if inclusion of a summary was OPTIONAL. So I guess the options are: 1. RECOMMEND providing a summary and REQUIRE processing entries whether one is provided or not 2. Make a summary OPTIONAL even in absence of content, and only informally mention the considerations feed providers should be aware of (possibly elsewhere). Is that right so far? Assuming my reasoning is sound and these are the choices, Iâd still lean towards MAY, since verbiage is comparable in either case, but choice 2 simplifies the core spec. Regards, -- Aristotle
