[Imap-protocol] re: GMail

[Mark Crispin]

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 --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.