>> All that needs be in APP core is an element that says "everything in here >> MUST only be available via APP editing, ie. stripped when publishing". > > Disagree. I am -1 on MUST anything since the term 'publishing' cannot > be defined.
Please see my other message about this being the wrong question. I believe it would be much clearer to say that pub:control data must only be visible via the APP editing protocol (or equivalent), and not visible by other means. If you have permission/passwords to edit the entry, you have permission/passwords to edit/view pub:control. If you don't have access to the edit version of the entry, then you don't get to see the editorial metadata. So, no need to define "publishing" or "public". Is there a clear line between viewing the entry via non-editable protocols, and viewing the entry via the APP editing protocol? > I am also -1 on including the element itself, since it > could easily be added if necessary. It could, but it would be broken by design. We could also easily add elements which depend on the orders of entries, but since the spec says the order can be jumbled by any intermediary such an extension would be broken. > I am also -1 on including the element itself, since it > could easily be added if necessary. I gotta ask one thing though ... in what way is having pub:control *harming* the APP, other than some vague idea of aesthetics or code elegance? I see it like this: if there is no harm in having it, and there is harm in its absence, and there is benefit in having it, and an absence of benefit in not having it ... then we should have it. At this point, you need to demonstrate a harm to convince me to change my mind. e.
