A couple of additional suggestions
Stuart K. Bingë
list at codefusion.co.za
Mon Aug 16 14:52:44 CEST 2004
On Monday, 16 August 2004 14:20, Bo Thorsen wrote:
> On Monday 16 August 2004 14:12, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Monday 16 August 2004 13:42, Bo Thorsen wrote:
> > > I think we miss a very important tag: <revision>
> > What would revision mean?
> > Is it about the format?
> No, it's revision of the incidence/note/... Whenever it's changed, it
> should += 1.
I think it's a good idea to include this in the format spec.
We'll need it in the future if we start using the XML format as the base for
some kind of iTip-like request mechanism, in order to maintain order between
interchanged messages. It also allows one to see how many times a specific
object has been updated over its lifetime, which doesn't hurt to have.
I like <producer-id> as well - it'll help identify broken clients more quickly
than other means if we can see what client is generating a specific message.
I would think most clients add some sort of similar identification to an
X-Header within the message, however it would be nice having a standard
attribute that contains this information regardless of what client saved the
If we do add these two tags however, how would the following case be resolved?
- Client A saves a groupware object, setting <producer-id> to "Client A"
- Client B reads the object, modifies it, and re-saves it, incrementing
In the second step, would Client B be required to updated <producer-id> to
"Client B", or would we rather intend <producer-id> to show which client
produced the initial revision?
Code Fusion cc.
Office: +27 11 673 0411
Mobile: +27 83 298 9727
Email: s.binge at codefusion.co.za
Tailored email solutions; Kolab specialists.
More information about the format