* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-18 06:30]: > This was modified in the course of debate. It can't be accepted > because the +1's (and -1's too) were referring to multiple different > wordings and there were three pretty strong -1's. > > Conclusion: The editors are asked to strengthen the language in the > draft that emphasizes the difference in intended purpose between > content and summary. This can be done by adding a sentence to 4.2.13 > that says "The text in atom:summary should not be identical to the text > in atom:content or identical to the text in atom:title." > > However, this might have gained consensus if it were stable. If a > bunch of voices get behind a single version in the next 72 hours and > win the hearts of the -1's, the door is open.
For the reasons I argued inâ â <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15216.html â <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15230.html â <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15232.html âwhich can be summarized in the following pointsâ â It is extremely valuable for consumers that the format allows a distinction between summaries/excerpts and full content, and this distinction should therefore be enforced within possibility. â The only formally verifiable criterion that a feed producer is using these elements *in*correctly is if he is sticking the same content in both and letting aggregators worry about it. By merely forcing feed producers to make any choice at all, it can expected that they will choose correctly. âI suggest that the proposed editorial be accepted as is, with the sole modification of turning the informal âshould notâ into a normative âMUST NOT,â ie: The text in atom:summary MUST NOT be identical to the text in atom:content or identical to the text in atom:title. Meta-PS.: do I need to follow any formal procedures (such as writing a pace) for consensus do be determined? Regards, -- Aristotle
