Re: Partial equality match and sort order

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Doug responded on 03/12/2003 12:06:10 PM:
> So you are saying that just because you were busy (or for what ever
> reason) and did not wish to participate in that discussion that it
> does not count (as meaty)? 

Not quite.  

Ive been one of the most consistanly
active folks in the WG since it was a BOF.  There have been times
when I was less than immediately responsive to postings (work pays the
bills so it takes priority to the WG) but Ive always tried to keep up on
the threads.  I cannot think of anyone else whose had my record of
consistant engagedment in this WG so dont try to make it sound like I was
not engaged.  Unless it was around the end game time of Notes R6 (~May
- Sep 02) I've been involved in the discussion. 

>              
                    Sorry
- it was discussed and you elected
> not to particapte for what ever reason. It is time to close CAP
> and ship it.

I did a FT search of the archives for
the word "sort" and there was NOT a big discussion of sorting
as you would suggest.  We did have some discussions on it and there
was NOT the concensus you claim there is.  In fact so far I hear only
a concensus that it should NOT be in CAP.

CAP has been drawn out over several
years but I do not think we should just push it out the door because its
taken so long.  I have listed several issues in the past that have
NOT been addressed and we still have some (ie: Stored VQUERYs, sorting,
a LOGOUT command, signatures, multipart MIME, etc) that need to be addressed
before we can attempt a Last Call.  There are also the blank areas
related to BEEP that have not yet been filled in for anyone to review.
 So I do not think CAP is ready for a Last Call yet.

Once we "ship" CAP 1.0 we
have to live with the warts it has if we (or some future effort) tries
to fix up and extend CAP to include features too tough to get into CAP
1.0.  I think we need to make sure the bigger warts are gone before
we try to foist it off on folks and then sell products based on it.  Otherwise
CAP becomes a wasted protocol since its too buggy or kludgy to implement.

> I am confused - you site Mark Pattersons discussion
of ordering (which
> IS on the list) and yet declare there was not a CAP discussion? Explain
> what a discussion is if that is not it?

Cant help your confusion any more than
say go reread the archives.  A FT search of the archives all the way
back to the BOF days reveals 374 documents that contain the word 'sort'.
 This includes:

11 messages under this subject (excluding
any traffic after my last msg)
8 messages under the CHARSET discussion
recently
270+ messages sent during iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP
(and cruft) development discussions.  I kinda got lost after 280ish
messages so Ill call it 270+
80+ messages unrelated to actual sorting.
 Stuff like "intend to answer the sort
of questions" or "I
sort of was thinking...". or "going to
work sort of " or  "taxes
out it's just sort " from
Johns .sig.

This rough check of 'sort' is ~369 messages.
 Deduct that from the 374 found and that leaves ~5 messages.  That
must have been a very meaty and engaging discussion and concensus building.
 Maybe it was done under the term "ORDERBY" and noone ever
used the phrase "sort" (I guess its possible...).

FYI: The Mark P. thread was ~29-Nov-2000
under the Subject "CAP requirements draft resubmitted".  It
only had ~8 msgs in that thread.  I would not call that "meaty"
either.  Perhaps you do, I don't know.

In any case so far I hear 4 votes against
the sorting and 1 for it.  The 300+ rest are abstentions.  To
me that sounds like rough concensus to remove it.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...