A couple of additional suggestions

[Stuart K. Bingë]

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 
message.

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 
<revision>

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?

-- 
Stuart Bingë
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.
http://www.codefusion.co.za/