Re: CalDAV Collections vs. IMAP Folders
Thomas Brüderli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.devel.kolab |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <515324E8.8000707__732.047708197747$1364403474$gmane$org@kolabsys.com> |
On 27.03.13 13:54, Georg C. F. Greve wrote: > On Wednesday 27 March 2013 13.29:13 Thomas Brüderli wrote: >> Can we call this a final decision? Using a /vendor/kolab/name >> annotation for display names and take the full IMAP path as UID for >> *DAV collections? > > When I spoke about this with Jeroen, he had a strong opinion on > re-using the comment annotation, which otherwise has no use we were > aware of. > > It would have the benefitof not having to introduce yet another > annotation, which also has a cost. We were driving at the time, so > could not look up the actual definition of this annotation. > > In particular we were not sure this annotation is used anywhere, by > anyone, as adding a comment of "My spam box" for /INBOX/Spam seems to > add very little, and we struggled to come up with sensible uses for > the annotation ourselves. > > If it turns out it is defined, but in fact not really used by anyone, > using it for the symbolic name of the *DAV access would make a lot of > sense. > > Unfortunately Jeroen is on vacation right now, and he should have the > last say on this. But if you need to start working on this now, I'd > suggest to start with the comment annotation, as that exists and is > not used for Kolab otherwise, and we change it to a private annotation > later if we must. > > Would that work for you? Beside the semantics that don't really fit, it does. Should we even consider to create a KEP for this? Reading through the discussion in this thread this shall become the generic display name for all clients and not only for *DAV. Otherwise different clients show different names for the same folder and I don't think this is desirable. ~Thomas