Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/5/05, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 except for one thing: In section 4.1.2, I'd suggest something along these lines:
atom:entry elements which do not contain an atom:content element, or whose atom:content element's type attribute indicates a MIME media type, SHOULD contain an atom:summary element.
This Pace is incompatible with PaceOptionalSummary and incomplete. -1.
Something a little less curt would be appreciated.
The stated abstract of PaceOptionalSummary (i.e., "removing the requirement for <atom:summary>") is met. In your mind, this equates to completely optional. That has yet to be conclusively established.
What concerns me more, however, is that interoperability issues that PaceOptionalSummary not only creates, but also uncovered during its discussion.
Unless there is some plan for addressing these interoperability issues (and by that, I mean something more constructive than "That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the format to your app."), then perhaps BOTH paces are incomplete.
There are a number of ways to finesse the identification of the issue into the spec. For example, take a look at how Tim worded PaceAllowDuplicateIDs. Producers are put on effectively put on notice that if they include multiple entries with the same ID, that some or all of them may be ignored.
How should we convey a similar sentiment about the reality that entries without a readily available textual representation may suffer the same fate?
- Sam Ruby
