[OGo-Discuss] Bug 1852: support creation of xmpp: field types in OGo

[Adam Williams]

> >              {
> >                  key        = aimid;
> >                  target     = "_self";
> >                  type       = 20;
> > 		urlpattern = "aim:%@";
> >              },
> yes, if i see this, this would make more sense for me too.
> > '20' would just mean its an IM address (having an own type for IM  
> > might make sense, though I'm not entirely convinced of that either  
> > since a generic URL UI can easily detect that a URL is a chat one).
> as mentioned above, the url field is handled somehow special. I can define a 
> ftp link with the method above, but just entering ftp://ftphost into the url 
> field does not work.

Ok,  but an FTP link is really a different kind of thing than an IM
address.  Keeping different kinds of things separate is always a good
thing IMHO,  avoids the work of getting them apart later when you
discover you want to do something you didn't originally consider.

> > Though I also dislike the urlpattern in this case. The database  
> > should store the full URL, not just the value the user entered. Maybe  
> > 'defaultUrlScheme' might make sense (the editor would check whether  
> > the value entered by the user has a scheme and if not, would add the  
> > default scheme).
> well, it could be handled like this, should be easy.

It is almost a different issue, but you are right about the URL field
only supporting http/https.  Whether or not there should be a "literal
URL" value type is another discussion.

> > Thinking about it, for the specific case of IM addresses we should  
> > really use the Outlook field in the way Microsoft uses it. Its sounds  
> > kinda stupid to reinvent the wheel here (how long before people ask  
> > about having IM addresses in Outlook/Evolution ...)
> but I see only one im_address field in the company table, how is Outlook 
> using it? Would it be possible to store an arbitrary amount of arbitrary IM 
> accounts that way?