On 28/10/05 11:42 AM, "Luke Arno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that in most mail clients, drafts are
> just kept in a folder. Why not just have draft
> collections? Have we talked about this before?
we have discussed it before, but at least three problems arose
1) how to move an entry from the draft collection to the published
collection
2) some implementations want more than draft vs published
3) the idea of using collections for segregating according to status led to
the idea of collections segregating according to author, category, and other
meta data, which led to the problem of exploding combinations
> I am still firmly opposed to pub:control and doubly
> opposed to pub:significant.
pub:control as a wrapper allows for order of control instructions to be
preserved. Most often that won't be needed, but consider an entry whose
content is an image POSTed from a mobile phone... order might be important,
why rule it out?
as to pub:significant ... I can think of other controls which fit the same
pattern... and I have two real use cases right now...
I have one site with 6 blogs/collections (news, events, tech,
etc), of which only some entries are promoted to the front page,
and thus I could use a <x:promote>true</x:promote> structure.
I have another site which has a "current news" thing on their
front page, and older items are selectively removed as needed
(sale has ended, training event fully booked, etc). I'd use a
<x:visible>true</x:visible> for that.
I can't think of any atom:thing which could be shoehorned into implying the
above treatments. And no, I don't want to bastardise atom:category to this
end.
Thus, <pub:significant>true</pub:significant> sets an example for extension
controls.
e.
