[Design] Re: [Please review] Updates to Stamping, aka Edit/Update Spec

[Brian Kirsch]

On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:

> Sorry I was connecting that without EIML, edit/update wasn't  
> possible. I was focusing too much on just the user-facing metadata  
> EIML would transmit and forgot about stuff like UUID.
>
> So I think since no one (not even the user) can know if a message  
> they send from Chandler is likely to be edited and updated by  
> recipients...every email sent from Chandler will need to have the  
> EIML attachment.
>
> What kinds of problems does that cause?

It does not cause any problems really. It just would be nice not to  
have to attach EIML for standard emails sent from Chandler. If there  
was some way to divide Edit / Update from standard mail that would  
have been nice to have. It just is weird to have an email message  
sent from Chandler like "Hello from Brian" having an EIML attachment.  
It would be akin to us attaching an .ics on every message regardless  
of whether it contained event data (EventStamp).

However, based on the information I have received (pje morgen  
gbaillie) during the last week at least for Preview it seems to make  
sense to just send EIML with every message sent from Chandler and to  
continue to look for optimizations.

-Brian


>
> Mimi
>
> On Feb 20, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand. Why does the user need to understand  
>>> this? You asked if there was a way to avoid sending an EIML  
>>> attachment with every single Chandler mail? This is just a way to  
>>> do that, but it's not really an end-user facing feature.
>>
>> Hi Mimi,
>> In order to participate in an Edit / Update workflow EIML must be  
>> generated from the first sent message. Thus the user has to know  
>> that he or she must have a different from then sent by to generate  
>> that first EIML record. Otherwise, that email will never be able  
>> to participate in a Edit / Update workflow. I think this would  
>> lead to confusion by users.
>>
>> Yes, I am looking for ways technically to prevent having to  
>> generate EIML for every message sent from Chandler. And yes your  
>> suggestion would limit the sending of EIML but again I am  
>> concerned that to the user it will not be clear that entering a  
>> different from is the way to trigger the start of the Edit /  
>> Update workflow.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mimi
>>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mimi,
>>>>> 1. If Sender of the message (Send as: byline field) is not the  
>>>>> same as the From: field, then the message requires an EIML  
>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This concerns me. Although from a technical standpoint this is  
>>>> doable I am worried that users will not
>>>> understand that the from has to be different to start a Edit /  
>>>> Update work-flow.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone else think this might be confusing?
>>>>
>>>> -Brian
>>>>
>>>
>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>>
>>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design