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

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 11:52 AM 2/20/2007 -1000, Brian Kirsch wrote:

>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).

Since we don't currently allow fine-grained merging of an item's body 
attribute, it's not clear to me what information is actually being shared 
for edit/update if the thing being emailed is just a Note.  Are there any 
other fields we would care about editing/updating in the Note case?  Do we 
need to support edit/update of plain notes at all?

ISTM that perhaps we could reserve edit/update for non-Note items only at 
the present time.