On 5/5/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Everything in the proposal section is fine with me, as well. It's that
"Notes" section that's the problem.
> 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.
That section says is "If PaceOptionalSummary is 'accepted', this Pace
changes summary to SHOULD." That's OK to propose, but you can't accept
both of them. They conflict.
>
> 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?
Current spec: MUST contain a summary
after PaceOptionalSummary: MAY contain a summary
after PaceTextShouldBeProvided: SHOULD contain a summary
Robert Sayre
