On 10/21/05, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was thinking for a bit that stripping can be done by the publisher on the > basis that they would know what would be control because they would be the > one that would handle it ... but then I thought of client side control meta > data. ...[interesting stuff]...
These are neat ideas, but none of them need to be in APP core. I am extremely -1 on pub:control as currently (un)defined. I don't care that it was already accepted, because no one but me realized that was the case. Some WG members think pub:control can be used to hold elements that must magically disappear when PUT to the server, some WG members think pub:control can be used to store arbitrary elements that don't disappear, most WG members define the implied stripping in terms of public feeds (never mind what public means), and a few WG members seem to think its ok to store passwords in there because the elements won't be made "public". I would be ok with it if used for storage of editing information (see: no ACL terms, just say what it does), but not ok with it if used to reinvent HTTP and/or SOAP headers, and certainly not ok with both simultaneously. Robert Sayre
