On 10/21/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
It seems counterproductive to lecture me about the process, since I know exactly how it works, and how it has twice resulted in an absolutely awful WG draft. > 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, Yes, it's right there in Roy's thesis (section 6.2.3). > 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. Well, I really don't have a problem with including it, if it's defined as a bit-bucket. I just sent this off to the IETF: http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/10/21/draft-sayre-atompub-protocol-basic-04-from-3.diff.html http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/10/21/draft-sayre-atompub-protocol-basic-04.txt http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/10/21/draft-sayre-atompub-protocol-basic-04.html Robert Sayre
