Subject: Re: [lemonade] AD comments on IMAP FILTERS

From: "eburger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:13:10 +0000

[as contributor]
I lean toward the latter, as we are talking about a modifier to an object, not additional metadata that will get out of sync. For example, your server crashes. Now you have hanging language tags or descriptions without languages. 

------Original Message------
From: Alexey Melnikov
Sender: [email-masked]
To: Lemonade WG
Cc: Chris Newman
Subject: [lemonade] AD comments on IMAP FILTERS
Sent: Nov 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Chris has commented that a human readable description for a stored 
search should have a language tag associated with it. He argues that it 
is important for /public searches.

I can see 2 ways of fixing the problem:

1). Define another subtree of annotations, e.g.

  /public/filters/languages/<filter_name>

that would contain language tags for corresponding
  /public/filters/descriptions/<filter_name>

values.

2).Extend format of /public/filters/descriptions/<filter_name> to 
contain language tag, e.g. <langtag>";"<description>

Comments?

At the moment I am leaning toward doing the former.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

--
Eric Burger

Sent from my mobile device; sorry if terse. All mobile users need lemonade.  See <http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade> for more information.
_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade
Supplemental Web Site:
http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:04:51 +0200

+1. Even if there weren't syncing issues, the former feels kind of
bloaty.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:11:55 +0100

> +1. Even if there weren't syncing issues, the former feels kind of

+1, same reason.

Arnt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:14:51 -0600

Timo Sirainen wrote:

>>I lean toward the latter, as we are talking about a modifier to an object, not additional metadata that will get out of sync.
>>
True.

>>For example, your server crashes. Now you have hanging language tags or descriptions without languages.
>>    
>>
I think the latter shouldn't be a problem, as we should have a default 
language. My argument in favour of using another annotation is that I 
would like to avoid the need for clients to extract the language tag 
from a single string. Also if language tagging doesn't get deployed, 
then there is no impact on clients.

But anyway, It looks like people prefer a single structured string.

Despite discouragement of use of Unicode plane 14 I am thinking that 
would be the best way. Reading 
<http://osdir.com/ml/text.unicode.general/2002-11/msg00014.html> just 
made this feeling stronger.
Chris says that he doesn't see a particular problem with that.

So, any objections of recommending use of Unicode plane 14, but making 
it optional?