On 5/10/05, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Bill de h�ra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-10 17:00]: > > Perhaps that can be offset by producing text that urges the > > publisher to consider emitting summaries. > > Maybe it's something for the implemetor's guide as opposed to the > spec, then?
That's one option. If the implementor's guide were a BCP RFC, it would be easy to flag in a feed validator. The validator at feedvalidator.org spits out a pretty scary warning when it decides to warn (example: javascript in html content). Many people mistake the warnings for an error, because the little 'valid' badge is buried under the warning message and source code. A BCP RFC could be used as fodder for a less-scary looking warning. Something like "This feed may not follow established best practices". Another option would be to give title-only entries an intimidating name in the spec. Something like "Entries that lack both an atom:summary and an atom:content are termed 'Content-Free'." Or we could do both. Robert Sayre
