FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds

Full feeds stand to be better for accessibility and I suspect will be moreso in future.

ummm, then why don't I see full feeds through Google reader ?

I prefer full feeds too.

Ted: maybe you don't have it set up right. I definitely see full feeds in mine.

Remind me again... why are your feeds full feeds?

Those who don't use full feeds should be tarred, feathered, and have the video put up on YouTube. I can't stand it! It's arrogant, presumptious, unhelpful, and I absolutely--on mere principle--refuse to ever click further.

Dileepa: my feeds ARE full text feeds. Are you not seeing full text?

I do *not* subscribe to partial feeds. Sites that offer them disappear off my radar. If sites really want to offer partial feeds, offer at least a choice. IMHO offering only partial feeds is a stupid as banning firefox users with the ad block extension.

Internet is full of stupid initiatives, Universal Music's forced opt-in of drm-free music is another example. If people want to shoot themselves in the foot it's fine by me.

Scoble; Maybe Ted isn't seeing full feeds bacause, as you say his reader isn't setup right, then again maybe it's because the feed he's trying to read isn't publishing full feeds like you. But thats exactly the issue with the current state of web accessibility...maybe the site has marked it up to be accessible, maybe it hasn't.
But the difference is that with partial rss problem there's only the single hurdle to putting out the same information stream to everyone whereas with html markup theres just so many points of failure and so much more reliance on the producer of the site/info.
Just a thought.
Dave