On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is very same page I am talking about, but I had made a template > that is used by that page (Scott is the most recent one to have edited > the template) and that is where I'd suggest we add the field for > collaboration (and as was suggested, Journal use). I'll take a first > pass, but as was pointed out, we have a lot of testing to do to before > we can say anything very meaningful regarding the scale of the > collaborations possible. > This sounds like a nice thing to indicate, once we are comfortable enough with the state of connectivity. > In regard to the Journal, I thought we should indicate two bits of > information: (1) does the activity record an entry in the Journal? and > (2) does the activity put data objects into the Journal (as per > Record, for example). Comments? This seems too low-level to me. Can we define a set of criteria for calling an activity properly "sugarized", and slap a "sugarized" sticker (sweetness guaranteed!) on those that are? It should include the basics which all activities are expected to have, like standard toolbars, journal integration, drag'n'drop support, and maybe a few other things. If automation tools advance far enough, we might even be able to run activities through that to verify these requirements. (As a side note, point (2) about data objects will be made irrelevant when the new Journal designs are integrated, so we definitely shouldn't expose that.) - Eben
_______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
