btw, sorry if that last note came across a bit snarky, there are just
other issues that still need to be worked out that are more important
than pub:control and it seems counterproductive to rehash conversations
we had weeks ago without a clear alternative proposal in the form of an
actual pace.
For what it's worth, I do believe that so long as we clearly acknowledge
that the atom:entries being published to a collection are not the same
atom:entry elements being served up in a public feed, I really don't
have a problem with dropping pub:control... The metadata that would go
into pub:control would become part of the metadata for the Edit version
of the entry rather than the Subscription version of the entry.
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 10/21/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, for now general consensus was declared accepting pub:control.
Let's get that reflected into the current version of the draft. If you
want to propose a specific change, post a pace and get it on the
schedule for discussion.
That doesn't work.
If you want to leave it out of your rAPP (aka
Robert's Atom Publishing Protocol) draft, feel free.
Haha! RAPP? I like to call it "the good one".
Further, there are paces proposed that further clarify the processing of
pub:control that have yet to be discussed.
Yes, there are Paces that purport to clarify things. I bet that will
be an interesting discussion.
Robert Sayre
