[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
From: James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:04:13 -0700
Cc: Atom Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=FuCAonaKO/jzob5SoHpGFEjMutM27lm34p9EwoujWF/IT15u2xPxEuUUhut6OaiEejEGepGZvgPnnxIKnUCsaEKLUi7UisTD4UvIPYiNYL+v9CPrk7s8yy5Pzao1+ogX5HgB/2j/4ol3e2EMX4vuX/Ec5HCOoKBGT90eINLTWQ0=
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Tim Bray wrote:

On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

<co-chair-mode> 3. There is consensus that if we put something about publishing status in the core, it should not be acceptable, just "draft? Yes/No".

s/acceptable/extensible/

sigh.

Disagree, I believe that a generic extensible publishing control mechanism should be developed for expressing things like whether trackbacks are enabled, etc. Draft Yes/No is a separate issue that speaks more about workflow cycle than enabled features / publishing parameters.

- James

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
  - From: Tim Bray

References:
- Consensus call: PacePubControl
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
Next by Date: Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
Previous by thread: Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
Next by thread: Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread