Re: Feeds MUST have alternate links?

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@xxxxxxx>]

* Mark Pilgrim wrote:
>> >If you're looking for a syndication format that's even looser and has
>> >even fewer required elements than RSS, you're in the wrong place.
>> 
>> It is
>> 
>>   http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22untitled+document%22
>>   http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22Welcome+to+Adobe+GoLive%22
>>   http://www.google.com/search?q=intitle%3A%22Willkommen+bei+Adobe+GoLive%22
>>   ...
>> 
>> pointless to require presence of meta data that is not required for
>> interoperability, and making meta data up just to satisfy obscure
>> requirements in a specification actually reduces the value of the
>> meta data when used properly.
>
>That won't help you make your case at all.  Channel title has been
>required in every version of RSS since 1999, and in CDF before that. 
>Are there thousands of "Untitled blog" feeds out there?  No.

Just like there are not millions of home pages without a customized
title either, most documents lacking a proper title are sub-pages;
but there are thousands of feed entries with titles like

  * [Insert Witty Title Here]
  * insert clever title here
  * [Click to Insert Title]
  * Click To Add Title
  * Insert Title Here
  * Untitled document
  * ADD A TITLE HERE
  * Untitled Entry
  * (no title)
  * No Title
  * Untitled
  * Title
  * ...

some even have something like

  * Can't think of a good title
  * heh...to tired to think of a good title 
  * I had a really good title for this. Really, I did.
  * No good title comes to mind...
  * Monday (Because I Couldn't Think of a Good Title)
  * I can never think of good subject titles
  * uh... can't think of a good title...
  * No Good Titles Before 10am
  * I suck at making up titles, so just insert something good here.
  * Can't Think of a good title...sorry 
  * dont really have a good subject title lol
  * ...

I wonder whether these are two classes of software, such that require
changing the "default" title and such that do not... So, what exactly is
the point of mandating meta data if software or people do not provide it
properly but rather some "junk" instead just to satisfy the requirement?

>Not all metadata is burdensome.  Some is reasonable to require.

RFC 2119 requires,

[...]
  Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
  and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
  actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
  potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)
[...]

Is it required for interoperation that Atom documents have an alternate
representation and refer to it? Does it have potential for causing harm
when such information is missing? No. Such a requirement is as pointless
as the requirement that renders http://diveintomark.org/ non-conforming,
section 14.2.1 of the HTML 4.01 Recommendation. I am as surprised that
feeds are required to have alternate representations as most standards
savy authors are surprised by that requirement; conformance requirements
should be obvious, not surprising -- they'll be ignored otherwise.