Small extension to the annotate proposal

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at
Tue Jun 29 22:19:38 CEST 2004

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:37:34AM +0200, Bo Thorsen wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 June 2004 11:17, Bo Thorsen wrote:

> > As agreed later in this thread, versioning should not go into the
> > annotation.

David and Stuart did not see the benefit,
but later Martin wrote about the case:
If we have an empty shared folder that we want to write
in and there are several xmlv1 and xmlv2 aware clients
in the installation (yes, this is thinking in the future), 
the client does not know what to write.
A version number in the annotate could solve that problem.

> > The Kolab format specifies the format when the annotation
> > is /vendor/kolab/calendar (for example). Other formats can just choose
> > something else.
> Okay, discussing this with David, I realize that my arguing here is too 
> vague.
> My point is that if we have /vendor/kolab, then it *is* the xml format, 
> since that's the Kolab format.

The question is what version of the xml format, if we decide to do
an 2.0 version in three or four years.

> If Konsec or kdepim wants to do the ical format also (and they do - 
> actually I will be the one coding on the ical format in kdepim), then it 
> should be something else. Whatever it is, it's not up to the kolab format 
> specification to say what that is. And more generally, I definitely don't 
> want to make this specification the central place to set annotations on 
> folders with groupware stuff in.
> So the point here is that our chosen annotations describe the fact that 
> the folders hold our xml format in them.

I'll get that point, but adding the version generation of the XML
format seems useful to me at this point in the debate.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the format mailing list