Eric Scheid wrote:
Is order significance of control elements the only argument we have left
in favor of pub:control?
as above: order is more complex than obvious
also: elegance - all pub:control stuff in one handy box, vs warting them all
with an attribute @pub:control="true"
This begs the question about whether or not control metadata *needs* to
be distinguishable from other metadata. My thinking on this has evolved
over the past couple of months. Initially I thought it was obvious, of
course control metadata should be handled differently than other types
of metadata. Not, however, I'm not so sure. So long as implementations
are not obligated to spit all of the metadata for an entry back out in
it's public feed, does it really matter if pub controls are distinctly
flagged as pub controls?
also: if we do decide on some basic expectation of control information only
be available via the APP it's a whole bunch easier to just say "everything
inside this wrapper".
Why could this not be left up to the definitions of each individual
control extension? For instance, in my blog controls spec, I could
easily state that a particular control element should not be exposed in
the publicly available version of the entry then leave it up to the
implementation to decide. The only variable is with implementations
that don't understand the control element which would be under no
obligation to regurgitate unknown metadata elements back out into their
public feeds. Some leakage could occur in those cases but is it severe
enough that we have to strictly regulate it?
- James
- James
