Re: Searching for concensus on Pub Control (Re: Consensus call: PacePubControl)

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>]

On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:20 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> When I say Control Information, let's just assume that's restricted to
> 'draft=yes/no' for now.

I'd assume that 'significant=yes/no' probably makes it in too.

> 1. Control information MUST be sent with the initial POST to create  
> an entry.
>     (otherwise creating a draft is a two step process.)

+1
(The MUST is ambiguous.  Do you mean "Control information is required  
to be present" or "It must be possible to include control  
information, if you have some".  I'm assuming the latter.  This  
applies to the rest as well.)

> 2. Control information MUST be sent with the initial POST to create a
> non-entry member.

+1

> 3. Non-entry collections MUST support control data.

Don't understand the issues.

> 3. Control information MUST be able to be set separately from updating
>     an entry via PUT. (because the overhead of PUTing the complete  
> entry
>     is too much overhead)

-1.  Too complicated.

> 4. Control information MUST be extensible.

+1 if you mean "there's a control container in which I can put stuff  
from other namespaces"
-1 if you mean a generalized <param name="foo" value="bar"/> construct.

> 5. Control information MUST be in an XML document.

+1

> 6. Control information MUST be contained inside the entry document.

+1.

-Tim

>    Thanks,
>    -joe
>
> --
> Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org