P.O. Boxes etc

[Joon Radley]

Hi,

Outlook provides for 3 addresses. Any or all of the addresses can be postal
addresses, depending if a field is set.

Introducing a new sub object <pobox> will not work as it cannot fit into the
current scheme. Adding a field to the <address> sub object, marking a
address as a mail address, will work 100%.

So if you introduce a new sub object please just prepend it with the k-
prefix e.g.. <k-pobox>.

Best regards

Joon Radley
Radley Network Technologies CC
Cell: +27 (0)83 368 8557
Fax: +27 (0)12 998 4346
E-Mail: joon at radleys.co.za

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kolab-format-bounces at kolab.org
> [mailto:kolab-format-bounces at kolab.org] On Behalf Of Bernhard Reiter
> Sent: 08 November 2006 08:52 PM
> To: kolab-format at kolab.org
> Subject: Re: P.O. Boxes etc
> 
> Joon,
> I think we still have a missconception here.
> Kontact has an extra field called "Post Office Box", I am attaching a 
> screenshot of the (sub)dialog for entering the address information for 
> illustration.
> 
> On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:48, Till Adam wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 September 2006 08:36, Joon Radley wrote:
> > > > I guess there is no way to distinquish the "p.o. box"
> > > > information from the rest of the contact information within 
> > > > Outlook?
> > >
> > > Yes, we can add a field to show that an <address> structure is a 
> > > mailing address.
> 
> Would it be fine with you to add an extra field for <pobox> 
> information?
> Could you make use of it in Outlook and thus display it?
> Otherwise we could just add the tag and Toltec ignores it, which would 
> be a nondesirable solution, but at least Kontact to Kontact does not 
> lose the information anymore.
> 
> > I'm still not quite sure where the connection between adding a P.O. 
> > Box field to address information and marking an address as
> a postal one is.
> > It's possible that I'm being daft here, but is the exact
> same problem
> > not present with street, or zip code, etc? Why does P.O. 
> Box suddenly
> > introduce the need for this flag, which seems completely
> orthogonal to
> > what is actually _in_ a postal address? I must be missing something.
> >
> > Thanks for bearing with me, Joon,
>