Thanks for the link. Glad you generally liked it.

Just a few thoughts on optional titles. I acknowledge that some (I disagree with "vast number" -- that has not been my experience at all) weblogs do not use titles. However syndication feeds could (and I hope will) be used by many other applications. Weblogging has been an important and early contributor to the proliferation of RSS, but it would behoove us to not get caught up in it being the primary point of reference. Also, good descriptive titles are very important to the usefulness and "scannability" of a feed to a consumer. Could you imagine a newspaper or magazine wiith titles? I personally unsubscribed from a few weblog feeds because their feed had little value in my aggregator without a title or relevant excerpt. Even a publisher generated title like "trained monkey: oct 5, 2002 8:20pm -08:00" is better then none or one that my aggregator has to guess at. If you're that defiant about creating a title then you can use <title></title>. Just my 2 cents since you brought it up.

Thanks for the spelling correction. I'm a cow. ;)

every weblog powered by the free version of blogger does not have titles. i'd call that a pretty vast number.

if your aggregation tool needs titles, it should synthesize them from the information that it can get. if the publisher generates it, aggregation tools that don't need a title don't know that they can ignore such synthesized titles. (and there's a difference between no title and an empty title.)