Hi,
Sheila Mooney wrote:
Mimi is not around so I will have to make a call on this. I suspect
that she would want to preserve the stampness of the original item
when you reply, reply all etc. This would be consistent with all the
editing and updating workflows. I might of course have this wrong :-).
I already had a discussion on a private thread on that with Brian and I
was of the opinion that Reply, Reply all should not propagate stampness
while Forward should. Here's a copy of the thought process:
"""
I'm not sure we want to copy the stampness when replying to a message.
The idea of stamping is that we have one unique aggregate of info
somewhere to handle a multiplicity of meaning. If we dupe this, it looks
like going against the idea of stampess (to me at least).
e.g. I receive a message which has also an ics attached. Thanks to
Chandler's smartness (available since alpha2, thanks Bryan... :) ), this
email is stamped as an event and appears on my calendar. Now, I want to
reply to say to the sender "I'll be there", I don't think we want to
create a new event on top of the first one and that what would happen if
we were to copy the stampness (or may be there's a subtle way to do
this I don't know...). The way I understand it, the communication
thread continues its merry way but does not carry the item with it.
Think of the stamp as attachments. They're not resent when you reply. On
the other hand now I think about it, they are when you forward. Hmmm....
"""
So my conclusion was that:
- Reply, Reply all: are just a way to fork a "chat" on the item but
shouldn't propagate and duplicate items, therefore, should not carry the
stampness with them
- Forward: is a way to delegate something to someone else and should
carry the stampness with it
Open for debate of course.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
