Very good point. Agreed. Perhaps we could specify some SHOULDs or MAYs in regards to what elements of pub:control are appropriate for feeds?
> -----Original Message----- > From: James M Snell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:33 PM > To: Byrne Reese > Cc: Thomas Broyer; Atom-Protocol > Subject: Re: Various > > 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 > > > > > > > >
