Re: CalDAV Collections vs. IMAP Folders

Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> On 2013-03-20 09:12, Thomas Brüderli wrote:
>> And what about sharing folders? If stored in /private/comment, how 
>> would a
>> folder appear to a sharee? If we use annotations for display names, we
>> should consider to make that at least /shared/ with the option to set 
>> a
>> /private/ name on folders owned by others.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Things I'd like to see considered:
> 
>   - How will mail folders behave? I'm thinking being able to actually 
> add a comment to them (think "pop-up help/comment to explain usage") 
> might be useful. This might mean 'comment' should remain a comment (how 
> is it defined for mail?) and so we might want to add an annotation 
> /vendor/kolab/name, perhaps.

I'd vote for a specific annotation, too. And you're right, this feature can
make sense for mail folders as well.

But I'd like to get back to the CalDAV/CardDAV realm. Here things are
slightly different. While I assume for mail folders, we still maintain the
folder hierarchy (just with custom names), hierarchy doesn't work in
CalDAV. So the default display name for the folder
"others/firstname.lastname/Calendar/Shared with Friends" in CalDAV would be
something like "(firstname.lastname) Calendar » Shared with friends"
according to our current rules. We can agree that the *DAV service
automatically generates these display names unless there is a
/private/vendor/kolab/name annotation present. That's fair enough for the
display name topic.

But I'm still not sure about the UID being derived from the actual IMAP
folder path. Especially when CalDAV clients create new folders with UIDs
like 5370e25fa646-4b9db78f1f30-fd07c306. But with the /vendor/kolab/name
supported by all clients we can maybe accept that.

~Thomas

_______________________________________________
Kolab-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.intevation.de/mailman/listinfo/kolab-devel