Nick Bradbury notes the that the "full vs. partial feed content debate has risen from the ashes again" in this post. My comment turned into a post of sorts that I thought I'd repost a lightly edited version here.
I'm with Nick. I'm rather tired of this whole argument really. Some of the full feed arguments I've read seem to want to replace going to web pages and viewing the HTML entirely. That seems a bit off and extreme to me. I don't think this is a black and white issue anyways. For some sites it makes sense (read: has value) to have full feeds and some it does not.Still I can see the need in both and agree it is a user interface issue more then anything.
I'm a proponent of Atom because you can include both in one feed in a clear and concise manner. Atom also provides the aggregator better meta data for interfaces that work consistently. My expectation in subscribing to Atom feeds is that the aggregator won't have to make guesses and make me suffer from issues like these highlighted in this post over on Signal vs. Noise. This entry illustrates an interface issue that is created by the ambiguities found in RSS feeds.
Just my view as a user and a developer.
During the syndication wars that eventually led to the Atom format emergence many argued that users should care about formats. That is true, but they are not entirely divorced from each other. If you use a crappy format making a good user interface becomes difficult if not impossible to achieve. This is why the suggestion of using OPML for attention data is concerning to me. I don't need to pound anymore nails into the floor with my forehead.
