[Cosmo-dev] cosmo 0.6.1 EIMML changes

[Brian Moseley]

On 3/1/07, Jeffrey Harris <jeffrey at osafoundation.org> wrote:

> We definitely discussed doing this, but my memory is that we ultimately
> decided against it and specifically planned on including note fields in
> EventModification records.

heh, i don't remember that at all. i certainly would have argued against it.

> I think the reason was that we don't want to
> send around UUIDs for modifications, because modifications are uniquely
> determined by master uuid and recurrence-id, passing around different
> Chandler's varying concepts of the modification's UUID is a recipe for
> disaster.  So I think the keys for modifications need to be the master's
> UUID and the modification's recurrence-id, not the modification's UUID.

wait a minute. a modification is an item in chandler, right? so why
would different chandlers have different notions of a modification's
uuid?

my takeaway from that meeting was that modifications are basically
just items that, when event stamped, map to icalendar "exception"
events.