Luke Arno wrote: > I don't disagree with your points (except your > characterization of microformats but this is not the > list for that). I think we are just looking at the APP > as having different goals.
Microformat snarkiness withdrawn. My bad. > You call them "protocol directives". What protocol? What > directives of APP need to go in a box? The current directives belong to APP. I can live with "control directive" or "directive". > I guess the disconnect in our mental models here is this: > APP as just a publishing protocol or APP as distributed > applications protocol. I think APP will be an even better > substrate for application protocols to build on to if we > stay out of their processing models and sticks to the > humble task of pushing entries around. If we had a uniform structure and/or processing model acting as a substrate, fine. We don't. So I'm unconvinced this won't turn out to be an unholy crapfest of special cases as new directives/controls/whatnot come on board. Feels like building on sand. Actually, I know what it feels like - it feels like an Ant script. (I fully appreciate this is a elegantist what-if argument and if I turn out to be wrong, great) cheers Bill
