On 10/31/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Atom syntax does not provide a garbage can for extensions and I am not sure why we are kluging one on after the fact. I guess that makes me the roughness. If no one else sees it as a useless piece of cruft that provides nothing but an illusion of order, I will resign myself to this and shut up. I am not trying to kick a dead horse here. Dead horses are not very useful but neither is kicking them. If this is the end of discussion, my final comment is this: The general handiness of containers is a strange and nebulous reason to add anything to what we are going to call a "specification". - Luke
