[Imap-protocol] re: GMail
MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU
Mon Oct 29 19:00:52 PDT 2007
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Tim Showalter wrote:
>> I think that there is much more opposition to adding to a base
>> specification than to a service level. A new base specification purported
>> kills the previous one; whereas a service level might get ignored at a
>> particular point.
>> Sometimes how you call things does matter!
> Well, I think that's true, but it's clear that base specifications get
> ignored, too.
Sigh, only too true!
> I don't have a feel for which is the easier path, but I am fearful of the
> work involved in IMAP5, because I think it will bring out the trolls.
That is my fear too; but trolls are possible with service levels too.
>From the very earliest days of IMAP, the "IMAP will die unless IMAP adopts
my favorite functionality" argument has been made.
> If we were to add a single client-side capability, we could provide a general
> mechanism. I think it's desirable if we encourage client capabilities to be
> bundled, but I think requiring it is a mistake.
> I don't believe IMAP5 would provide this flexibility.
The idea with IMAP5 was NOT to have any client-side capabilities, but
allow breaking assumptions of the past.
I think that the path of client-side capabilities leads to madness.
-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
More information about the Imap-protocol