[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       imap
Subject:    Re: Multiple command clarification.
From:       Grant Baillie <gbaillie () apple ! com>
Date:       2004-01-13 22:17:17
Message-ID: 3F804E4A-4616-11D8-8B36-0030654BE4FC () apple ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 02 Jan 2004, at 2:28 PM, Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Christof Drescher wrote:
>>> RFC 2180 is informational.  It is not standards-track.  In part, RFC 
>>> 2180 has been overtaken by events.
>> I'm willing to learn. What events?
>
> The past 6.5 years of implementation history.
>
>> This goes to a point like: Client implementors ignored this or that 
>> (namely RFC2180), so now you have to live with it.
>
> Please remember that RFC 2180 was only informational, not 
> standards-track, and it reflected the collective wisdom of 6 1/2 years 
> ago.  The fact that it prevaricates on certain issues should indicate 
> to you that these issues were just as hotly debated then as now.
>
> Certain of its recommendations have ceased to be good ideas (in fact, 
> I believe that those were never good ideas) since client implementors 
> ignored the possibility and server implementors choose to oblige those 
> clients.  In other words, the market decided the issue.
>
> This doesn't affect the standards-track specification, since it did 
> not rule on this issue.  Perhaps a future standard will; but if it 
> does I predict that it will be on the side of least-surprise to the 
> client.
> ...

Is it worth updating 2180 to remove its erroneous recommendations (and 
maybe add new ones)?

--Grant

-----------------------------------
Grant Baillie
Mac OS X Mail.app

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]