Elias Torres wrote: > After writing my last email I thought of something else that could be > done instead of pub:control. This might have been suggested already or > it might just be not a best practice by the XML community. > > What if we were to create a pub:control attribute instead of an > element that extension elements can use to define where they want to > be placed. An element which does not identify itself as a pub:control > extension would have to be ignored by the server and let it pass > through. The APP would only pay attention to those elements marked as > controls. Forgive me for the stupid names, but maybe a simple > pub:control="yes" would do. Our blog extension could define a > blog:control element where everything relating to blogs would be > contained or elements could simply be used independently with > different pub:control attribute combinations.
Fuel to your fire: http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg02085.html same idea structurally, slightly different intent. In your case, you'll need all agents to conform to a state machine for entries so the expectations for each pub:control* attribute value are shared. cheers Bill * who says namespaces prefixes have no semantic import?
