RE: draft-nerenberg-imap-binary-00.txt

["Caleb Clausen" <clausen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

From:           	Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Steve indicated to me last week that he would combine the first two into one
> > proposal.  Do we expect two proposals now?
> 
> Steve's proposal for XFETCH includes support for both binary fetch and
> specifying external transfer channels for a fetch. (Among other
> things.)
> 
> My proposal provides binary fetch (only) for servers that don't want/need
> to support XFETCH.
> 
> The two can live side-by-side. Time will show if BINARY has enough
> support (in the presence of XFETCH) to move forward.

since everyone likes the XFETCH syntax so much better, why not 
do this: have separate capabilities for XFETCH itself, as well as all 
of it's options. so, the XFETCH document would define the following 
capabilities:
XFETCH
XFETCH-BINARY
XFETCH-CHANNEL
XFETCH-CHARSET
etc.

that way, servers which just want to provide a binary version of 
fetch could declare just XFETCH and XFETCH-BINARY. servers 
that want all of it would declare all the XFETCH capabilities.

or is this too great a proliferation of capabilities?

one question: will XFETCH work with the UID command? ie, will i 
be able to say,

tag UID XFETCH (BINARY) 1009 etc...

"The battle 
 for mental territory 
            is glory. 
            End of story."
                           --KRS-ONE