[Cosmo-dev] Re: [Scooby-dev] Cosmo/Scooby Merge (Please read and comment)

[Brian Moseley]

On 7/13/06, Mikeal Rogers <mikeal at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> As a little exercise, change the words "Cosmo, Scooby, and Chandler" with
> "Exchange, Outlook, and Entourage" and replace "ecosystem" with "platform".

hey, i can imap, smtp and dav to exchange. what's your point?

> I think this message is beginning to sound more and more like we're not just
> giving up on CalDAV, but on open standards in general. We're certainly
> saying it's now secondary.

that got said a while back, mikeal. maybe you should have argued
harder back then :)

but no, seriously, for like the fifth time today, let me reiterate -
we have no plans to back off on adding full support for dav+friends
and atom+friends. i'm especially passionate about the atom stuff and
am really looking forward to getting a stable platform back to
introduce atom-based features.

> It doesn't "support" the "the goals of promoting open standards" , if it
> insures that it's always a secondary consideration.

how about "the second of two primary considerations"?

> No, this is the exact opposite of what we are doing with the sharing format.
> The sharing format/protocol is an open standard we are drafting that allows
> Chandler and Cosmo to store and communicate information about the resources
> stored on those two products via an interface and protocol anyone can use.
> The move to merge Cosmo and Scooby is a move to reduce the use of similar
> open standards to communicate information about the data stored on cosmo.

no it's not. there will be 0.00% reduction in the use of open
standards to access cosmo.