On 10/25/05, Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> James M Snell wrote:
> >>>I like James' Blog Publishing Control draft, too. Why do we need to
> >>>wrap these in pub:control?
> >>
> >> How do you propose signalling that a particular piece of control meta
> >> data should be stripped before publishing?
> >
> > Also, how do you propose differentiating between control metadata and
> > entry extensions?
> >
> > (didn't we already have this conversation once? <sigh>)
>
> Weren't it you who argued then for "control as metadata"? Why such
> metadata MUST be stripped? Sure it *might* be, but why "MUST"?
>
Only some extensions will be processing instructions.
To an implementation that does not understand an
extension it is just an extension that it does not
understand.
Implementations may want to strip or not strip
extensions - processing or otherwise - based in
unique requirements.
1. The implementation knows what it is and handles
it according to its rules.
2. The implementation knows about some flag and
handles it according to rules for that flag.
3. The implementation knows about some box and
handles it according to its rules for that container.
4. The implementation does not know what it is
but sends it on through.
5. The implementation does not know what it is
and strips it.
etc.
This is why control should be an extension for those
for whom it fits.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceDropControl
- Luke
