Subject: Re: [lemonade] Taking the knife to METADATA

From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:47:28 -0700 (PDT)

> I'm not saying these are must-have elements, but I'm not sure taking 
> them out will make much difference in ease of implementation.  Are 
> you saying it will?  Is this because of parsing responses, or 
> something else?

Attributes make the protocol a moderate amount more complex, with
relatively little benefit back to the client.  (They also give a false
sense of extensibility.)
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:30:17 -0700 (PDT)

> > If you want searching, then write an extension to this extension 
> > that does use LISTEXT.
> 
> But it is possible to search for everything else in IMAP (headers,
> text in body parts, flags, etc.), so lack of search would be awkward.

I see the point, although I honestly don't see the use case.

But even if you do introduce search functionality (and the LISTEXT
stuff from the previous draft went way beyond the simple "find this text
string" searching available on all those other pieces of data), you'd
still have to make awkward exceptions for non-text data.

(And, before we risk going there, I'd also like to avoid requiring
I18NLEVEL=2.)
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade