On Jun 13, 2006 09:49 PM, Jeff Christensen <jrc001 at cityxpress.com> wrote:

> 
> Martin is this you "thinking out loud" about this feature?
> 

My approach was to show that it is not as easy as it looks like,
but my last paragraph is truly an outlook how we could do it
if we are able to answer the questions.


> How weird is this idea?
> 

Extremely ;-)


We need to solve the open issues and it would be helpful
to gather some ideas around this topic. Most important for
me is the consistent handling which means that such a feature
is available through all clients and existing functions - some 
more detailse: i would like to avoid that such "declaration" is
only  available in the webfrontend and that the permission model
still works.


Regards,

Martin Kauss



> > Hi,
> > 
> > from the user perspective there are some confusing 
> > considerations we have to think about :
> > 
> > The global address book and the private folder having permissions.
> > If the user copies the objects into his private folder then 
> > everything is fine because the user himself has the full 
> > control like before and he is able to share such a contact in 
> > the normal way.
> > 
> > If we just "link" such an object from one folder into a 
> > private folder which kind of permissions are the primary ones 
> > or should we merge them? Also, what happens if the user 
> > shares his private folder? Should such an object appear in 
> > the shared calendar as well and what kind of impact are given 
> > by the shared folder permissions?
> > 
> > What about "virtual" folders where a user can "bundle" 
> > objects from any location. There are still some questions 
> > what happens with existing permissions and if an object is 
> > not longer available because of a permission change.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Martin Kauss
> 
>