Ok, so it seems we MAYhave come (back) to a rough consensus on
pub:control (which, as it turns out, is pretty much the exact same rough
consensus we had reached before this conversation came up all over
again). pub:control may not be the ideal place for this stuff, but it's
likely the least bad place to put it and we ignore stuff in it that we
don't know. The one difference is that we appear to have come to the
conclusion that order of the pub:control elements is not significant.
Works for me.
Tim Bray wrote:
First of all, I am horrified by the idea of using PIs for this.
Either put them in the instance as regular XML stuff, or do it
elsewhere as Roy suggests.
On Oct 31, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
<?pub-control draft="yes" significant="yes" ?>
That is entry metadata -- it should be in the entry.
...
<?blog-control private="yes" scheduled="2005-12-12T12:00:00Z" ?>
ditto
...
<?blog-enable feature="http://example.com/blog/feature/comments-
moderated" ?>
That is blog configuration info, which cannot be in entry postings
...
<?blog-enable feature="http://example.com/blog/feature/comments-
remote" ?>
ditto
...
While I think Roy's got a point, I forecast endless argument over
what is entry metadata and what is blog-level-configuration info and
what's a fish and what's a bicycle. It's a reasonable debate and I'd
be surprised if everyone agreed; that's why pub:control still feels
like a handy container for dumping all this miscellany that everyone
agrees is not part of the entry's content, but is rather publishing-
system apparatus. -Tim
