On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:
Sorry I was connecting that without EIML, edit/update wasn't
possible. I was focusing too much on just the user-facing metadata
EIML would transmit and forgot about stuff like UUID.
So I think since no one (not even the user) can know if a message
they send from Chandler is likely to be edited and updated by
recipients...every email sent from Chandler will need to have the
EIML attachment.
What kinds of problems does that cause?
It does not cause any problems really. It just would be nice not to
have to attach EIML for standard emails sent from Chandler. If there
was some way to divide Edit / Update from standard mail that would
have been nice to have. It just is weird to have an email message
sent from Chandler like "Hello from Brian" having an EIML attachment.
It would be akin to us attaching an .ics on every message regardless
of whether it contained event data (EventStamp).
However, based on the information I have received (pje morgen
gbaillie) during the last week at least for Preview it seems to make
sense to just send EIML with every message sent from Chandler and to
continue to look for optimizations.
-Brian
Mimi
On Feb 20, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Mimi Yin wrote:
Hi Brian,
I'm not sure I understand. Why does the user need to understand
this? You asked if there was a way to avoid sending an EIML
attachment with every single Chandler mail? This is just a way to
do that, but it's not really an end-user facing feature.
Hi Mimi,
In order to participate in an Edit / Update workflow EIML must be
generated from the first sent message. Thus the user has to know
that he or she must have a different from then sent by to generate
that first EIML record. Otherwise, that email will never be able
to participate in a Edit / Update workflow. I think this would
lead to confusion by users.
Yes, I am looking for ways technically to prevent having to
generate EIML for every message sent from Chandler. And yes your
suggestion would limit the sending of EIML but again I am
concerned that to the user it will not be clear that entering a
different from is the way to trigger the start of the Edit /
Update workflow.
Does that make sense?
-Brian
Mimi
On Feb 20, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Brian Kirsch wrote:
Hi Mimi,
1. If Sender of the message (Send as: byline field) is not the
same as the From: field, then the message requires an EIML
attachment.
This concerns me. Although from a technical standpoint this is
doable I am worried that users will not
understand that the from has to be different to start a Edit /
Update work-flow.
Does anyone else think this might be confusing?
-Brian
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
