+> Reviewing, this seems ok, but I don't like that
+> `feed_desc_fmt` is "safe => 0". And I question if that needs
+> to be configurable at all. I say, drop that configurable, and
+> only use the page meta description (or wikiname for index).
+>
+> Oh, and could you indent your `elsif` the same as I? --[[Joey]]
+
+>> I hadn't even realized that I was nesting ifs inside else clauses,
+>> sorry. I think you're also right about the safety of the key, after
+>> all it only gets interpolated with known, safe strings.
+
+>>> I did not mean to imply that I thought it safe. --[[Joey]]
+
+>>>> Sorry for assuming you implied that. I do think it is safe, though
+>>>> (I defaulted to not safe just to err on the safe side).
+
+>> The question is what to do for pages that do not have a description
+>> (and are not the index). With your proposal, the Atom feed subtitle
+>> would turn up empty. We could make it conditional in the default
+>> template, or we could have `$desc` default to `$title` if nothing
+>> else is provided, but at this point I see no reason to _not_ allow
+>> the user to choose a way to build a default description.
+
+>>> RSS requires the `<description>` element be present, it can't
+>>> be conditionalized away. But I see no reason to add the complexity
+>>> of an option to configure a default value for a field that
+>>> few RSS consumers likely even use. That's about 3 levels below useful.
+>>> --[[Joey]]
+
+>>>> The way I see it, there are three possibilities for non-index pages
+>>>> which have no description meta: (1) we leave the
+>>>> description/subtitle in feed blank, per your current proposal here
+>>>> (2) we hard-code some string to put there and (3) we make the
+>>>> string to put there configurable. Honestly, I think option #1 sucks
+>>>> aesthetically and option #2 is conceptually wrong (I'm against
+>>>> hard-coding stuff in general), which leaves option #3: however
+>>>> rarely used it would be, I still think it'd be better than #2 and
+>>>> less unaesthetical than #1.
+
+>>>> I'm also not sure what's ‘complex’ about having such an option:
+>>>> it's definitely not going to get much use, but does it hurt to have
+>>>> it? I could understand not wasting time putting it in, but since
+>>>> the code is written already … (but then again I'm known for being a
+>>>> guy who loves options).
+