I'm in the process of implementing rfc 5464, which is what the
ANNOTATEMORE drafts turned into.
Unfortunately, Cyrus' support is an early draft, before the paths
to everything were changed and the commands were renamed. It would
be great to be complient, and there is software out there like
On Tuesday 17 November 2009 13:28:49 Bron Gondwana wrote:
Hi,
to everything were changed and the commands were renamed. It would
be great to be complient, and there is software out there like Kolab
which would benefit from it.
Also, the database format is pretty nasty - complete with
What is your new format proposal?
Bron Gondwana wrote:
I'm in the process of implementing rfc 5464, which is what the
ANNOTATEMORE drafts turned into.
Unfortunately, Cyrus' support is an early draft, before the paths
to everything were changed and the commands were renamed. It would
be great
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:03:11AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
What is your new format proposal?
I'll see :) Not sure yet - but mainly not sizeof(unsigned long)!
Bron.
Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:03:11AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
What is your new format proposal?
I'll see :) Not sure yet - but mainly not sizeof(unsigned long)!
If we make a wholesale change to the database, perhaps this might be
something we put in the 2.4 branch.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:28:49PM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Does anybody out there use annotations much? Does anybody know any code
that would be broken by changing the way annotations are done?
I'm the only one who uses it here ;)
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:17:51PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:03:11AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
What is your new format proposal?
I'll see :) Not sure yet - but mainly not sizeof(unsigned long)!
If we make a wholesale
