[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-imapext-list-extensions-13


Barry Leiba wrote:


- section 6:  should we restrict selection options to be simple atoms
as we have in this draft, or should we allow for them to be a list as
well?   I'm thinking that some future selection option might take one
or more arguments.  For example, the non-standard SCAN extension used
by Pine and UW-IMAP could be reworked to look something like this:

x LIST ((SCAN "foo")) "" "bar/%"

or better yet:

x LIST ((SCAN "utf-8" "foo")) "" "bar/%"


No responses.......
Since I think it adds too much complexity, unless there's some support of Ken's suggestion Very Soon, I will toss the idea, and buy Ken a glass of Bordeaux in Paris as compensation.


It was just a thought, since I was thinking about Mark's SCAN extension at the time. I won't be devastated if we leave things alone.

Unfortunately, I won't be in Paris, and the compensation wouldn't be necessary anyways. :)

--
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp