Hi Brian, > ... but you left out all of the context of the discussion ;)
Oops, sloppy of me, the thread starts here: http://tinyurl.com/2j9wh2 > i think some people are overlooking the fact that, on the server, a > subscription is a different entity than the collection itself. the > subscription knows: the identity of the subscriber, the uuid of the > collection, the ticket used to access the collection, and a name for > the subscription that is unique to the subscriber. Ah, I didn't know that Cosmo tracked a separate subscription name from the collection name, thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to call local names "subscription names" on the Desktop, too. > if Jeffrey changes the name of the collection to "My Work" (with dav > or atom or in the desktop), i'll never notice, because my subscription > is based on the collection's uuid, not its name, and because my > subscription's name is independent of the collection's name. Looking at the Desktop + WebUI ecosystem as a whole, it's not clear to me if it's desirable for subscription names to be completely disconnected from the "real" collection name. I think there are many use cases where a collection name conveys shared meaning, and a change to a collection name will be expected to be visible to other users of the collection. For small workgroups, I think people don't want to think about who originally published a collection; if they've got read-write access, they want to avoid the hassle of paying attention to who created the collection. So, in my ideal world, anyone who subscribes read-write to a collection (in the WebUI or the Desktop) could change the real collection name, or just their subscription name. But if we can't achieve this ideal, it's not really a big issue to me. Sincerely, Jeffrey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
