On May 5, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
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.
Speaking not as the chair but as an interested WG member, I read them about eight times and I do not understand why they are in conflict. Someone please explain, as simply as possible, what the problem is, because I just don't get it. On the face of it, I am inclined to be +1 to both PaceOptionalSummary and PaceTextShouldBeProvided.
Note: I totally fail to understand the "Notes" bit at the end of PaceTextShouldBeProvided. It is underspecified to the extent that I can't figure out what language change it is actually saying is necessary.
Basically, allowing title-only feeds seems OK to me, and encouraging people to provide text also seems OK to me, so what's the problem? In fact, these seem pretty orthogonal; it seems quite plausible that one could like either of these without liking both. -Tim
