Re: Don't bake discrimination into the Atom core (was Re: Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative)

[Graham <dtcd@xxxxxxx>]

Mark Pilgrim wrote:

> The current design allows inaccessible content *and* accessible
> alternatives.  Tim is recommending removing multipart/alternative but
> *not* simplifying the content model.  This would leave the spec in a
> state that publishers with a way to publish inaccessible content, but
> no way to publish accessible alternatives, which is unacceptable.

<title>? <summary>? Can't the accessible content go in there? Summary 
especially seems like a good place for, say, a textual description of a 
picture or movie - it might even be the right place as well. Granted, 
inaccessible content can be placed in all three, but saying there's no 
place for alternate content is an outright lie.

+1 to PaceNukeMultipart. I'm shocked it ever got in.

Graham