If pub:control only contained information about whether or not comments
were enabled, I would agree with this, but pub:control could contain
sensitive information as well. For instance, some blog software
packages allow for the specification of a post password, the best place
for this to go when editing is in the pub:control. You wouldn't want
that syndicated in your feed.
Byrne Reese wrote:
4. I think it needs to be called out more explicitly that the Atom
entry POST'd to the collection will NOT be identical to the entry
that will appear in the public subscription feed. What I post and
what my subscribers will see are two different things that
will have
the same content/summary/etc but there will be differences (e.g.
pub:control stripped, differences between the link href's,
etc. This
is not made clear in the current draft.
I'd rather say there *might* be differences.
As long as we're talking back about pub:control, I don't
understand why it MUST be stripped in read-only versions [1]
if it's just _metadata_ about the entry [2].
[1]
http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCollectionControl_2bStrip
PubControl
[2]
http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCollectionControl_2bContr
olAsMetadata
+1
I personally would like to see a very tight symmetry between the feed
and the protocol. I like the idea of being able to "advertise" in a
manner of speaking what my post preferences/config is:
A) comments enabled until 10/30
B) no trackbacks
C) etc
