* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-15 17:10]:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> > The "atom:content" element either contains or links to the
> > full content of the entry. An "atom:entry" containing an
> > "atom:content" element MUST be a complete representation of
> > the entry. If the "atom:entry" is not intended to be a
> > complete representation of the entry, you MUST use
> > "atom:summary" instead. The content of "atom:content" is
> > language-sensitive.
> >
> >
> +1
>
> ...but isn't the "MUST use atom:summary" leading to
> misinterpretation as of title-only feeds? In that it might be
> understood as "you MUST use one of atom:content or
> atom:summary"
Yes, youâre right. Iâm not sure what the best way to address that
would be; maybe a qualification like âIf the "atom:entry" is not
intended to be a complete representation of the entry, you MUST
instead use "atom:summary" to carry content.â But that is clusmy,
I donât like it.
* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-15 19:35]:
> -1
>
> What does "complete" mean? This is untestable and semantically
> fuzzy. I think anything stronger than "is intended to contain
> the full content" is just not workable.
In terms of formal verifiability of feed conformance, you are
right. In fact, in those terms, there is no way we can clarify
the difference between the two elements, at all. Do you suggest
that this be left to the implementorâs guide?
Personally, I think the spec should try to make an attempt to
nail this down. Maybe the right approach would rather be
something along these lines?
An "atom:entry" MUST NOT have both an "atom:content" and an
"atom:summary" element with identical content.
That is a formally verifiable criterion, at least.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
