I very much agree with Eliot, and have run into similar legacy
conversion issues.
I do think we need to disallow title-only topics, but I think we may
need some other components that are smaller than topics. These
components could be used to better model "transitional text", too. The
current hack to create transitional "topics" seems to defeat the
definition of the ability for topics to stand alone.
Best regards,
--Scott
>
> At a minimum, I think the specification needs to be internally
> consistent on what the explicit and implied rules for topics are. At the
> moment, the specifications and statements such as the second one are
> inconsistent with the initial (and primary) definition of "topic".
>
> Either we have to disallow title-only topics (which I don't think we can
> do at this point since we have to be backward compatible with 1.0) or we
> have to relax the initial definition to make it clear that topics are
> not required to have bodies nor are they required to make sense on their
> own, but can in fact be just titles.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eliot
>
