On 5/5/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5 May 2005, at 6:23 pm, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > It would be deeply bogus to accept a Pace whose sole action was to > > remove a normative requirement, and simultaneously accept a Pace that > > puts it back in. Seems obvious to me. > > Not really. Assuming PaceOptionalSummary is accepted, there are two > completely valid outcomes: > > 1. PaceTextShouldBeProvided rejected => summaries are not required, > and textual content is not encouraged > 2. PaceTextShouldBeProvided accepted => summaries are not required, > but textual content is encouraged > > I don't see a conflict there. What's wrong with accepting two similar > paces because one corrects the flaws in the other?
Graham, that's just not true. It wasn't called PaceSummariesAreNotRequired, was it? It materially changes the only action PaceOptionalSummary takes. They are not compatible. In fact, let's get the chairs to clarify this. > > So, we're looking for some way to say "provide as much information as > > you can." The problem with saying SHOULD is that we purport to know > > how much information the publisher can provide. It would be very easy > > to explain this issue in the spec, and I have no objection to doing > > so. > > SHOULD here means "must unless you absolutely can't". We've covered lots of perfectly valid reasons not to include a summary, and we've heard from implementors that actually prefer its absence. Robert Sayre
