On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:29:31PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
I recognize that the point of notifications is to provide "one-liner"
updates, but giving different names to the subject and body fields isn't
good, and then using the subject/body distinction present in xmpp vs. mail
in opposite ways isn't good, either.
I'm definitely bringing up more than a WGLC should. Oops.
If instead we had:
Usage: notify
[":from" string]
[":importance" <"1" / "2" / "3">]
[":options" string-list]
[":subject" string]
[":message" string]
"method:" string
Let's forget about XMPP and mailto for a second, as notify is a generic
framework. The question is: Do we view abstract notification messages
in general to be tagged with a subject, with a few real methods not
offering one (like SMS), or do we view them being untagged with a few
real methods offering one (like mailto)?
To me, a notification is the second. Notes attached to the refridgerator
do not have a subject, neither do messages in IRC or SMS. ICQ I don't
know. (Comsat? Never mind. ;) We will find a bunch attributes more offered
by at least one real method, and that's exactly why we have ":options".
That's why I vote against introducing ":subject". To me, the karma of
a message does not include a subject. ;)
Michael