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

[James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joe Gregorio wrote:

> I'd like to know how people feel about the following statements. Feel
> free to either +/- 1 them or, for example, say that the MUST needs to
> be a SHOULD, or MAY. I've worded these all strongly to hoepfully prod
> more people into responding :)
>
> When I say Control Information, let's just assume that's restricted to
> 'draft=yes/no' for now.
>
> 1. Control information MUST be sent with the initial POST to create an entry.
>    (otherwise creating a draft is a two step process.)
>
>  
+1

> 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.
>
>  
+1

> 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

> 4. Control information MUST be extensible.
>
>  
+1

> 5. Control information MUST be in an XML document.
>
>  
+1

> 6. Control information MUST be contained inside the entry document.
>
>  
+0

- James