[Chandler-dev] Re: Issue with stamping and Reply, Reply All, Forward

[Philippe Bossut]

Hi,

Sheila Mooney wrote:
>
> Mimi is not around so I will have to make a call on this. I suspect 
> that she would want to preserve the stampness of the original item 
> when you reply, reply all etc. This would be consistent with all the 
> editing and updating workflows. I might of course have this wrong :-).
>
I already had a discussion on a private thread on that with Brian and I 
was of the opinion that Reply, Reply all should not propagate stampness 
while Forward should. Here's a copy of the thought process:

"""
I'm not sure we want to copy the stampness when replying to a message. 
The idea of stamping is that we have one unique aggregate of info 
somewhere to handle a multiplicity of meaning. If we dupe this, it looks 
like going against the idea of stampess (to me at least).

e.g. I receive a message which has also an ics attached. Thanks to 
Chandler's smartness (available since alpha2, thanks Bryan... :) ), this 
email is stamped as an event and appears on my calendar. Now, I want to 
reply to say to the sender "I'll be there", I don't think we want to 
create a new event on top of the first one and that what would happen if 
we were to copy the stampness (or may be there's a subtle way to do 
this  I don't know...). The way I understand it, the communication 
thread continues its merry way but does not carry the item with it.

Think of the stamp as attachments. They're not resent when you reply. On 
the other hand now I think about it, they are when you forward. Hmmm....
"""

So my conclusion was that:
- Reply, Reply all: are just a way to fork a "chat" on the item but 
shouldn't propagate and duplicate items, therefore, should not carry the 
stampness with them
- Forward: is a way to delegate something to someone else and should 
carry the stampness with it

Open for debate of course.

Cheers,
- Philippe