[Design] Towards a solution for Items in multiple collections?

[Ted Leung]

Ok,

So I've caught up on yesterday's IRC conversations: <http:// 
wiki.osafoundation.org/script/getIrcTranscript.cgi? 
channel=cosmo&date=20070314>
and the mail threads on items in multiple collections.    I don't  
think that this is an issue that we need to solve for Cosmo 0.6.1,  
but I'd like to know if that's incorrect thinking on my part.   I do  
think that we need to figure out what our solution will be for  
preview.  And to that end, I've made a (sort of) table that lists all  
the possible solutions that I saw proposed, along with the  
acceptability of each solution to each of three groups: PPD, the  
Chandler committers, and the Cosmo committers.  I left out the  
discussion of editing/annotating items because that's clearly in the  
far futrue

Release note the issue for preview:  PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo ?
Store an item in multiple collections as two (or more) distinct  
items: PPD Ok, Chandler  Ok, Cosmo Not Ok
Segregate the server item soup by account: PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo ?
No item soup in the server: PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo Not OK
Only allow the owner of an item to add/share it into multiple  
collections: PPD Not Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo OK
Rely on desktop client sync to resolve problems with items in  
multiple collections: PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo Not Ok
Per item access control: PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo Ok

If you remove all rows that have some groups saying "Not OK" we are  
left with:

Release note the issue for preview:  PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo ?
Segregate the server item soup by account: PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo ?
Per item access control: PPD Ok, Chandler ?, Cosmo Ok

is possible candidate solutions.

So, some questions:
* Did I capture all the possible solutions?
* Did I misrepresent any group's Ok'ness with a particular solution?
* How do we get to a reasonable solution for preview, if we assume  
that we can't do the ultimate right solution by then (I'm not saying  
we can or can't)?

Ted