[
Date Prev
][
Date Next
][
Thread Prev
][
Thread Next
][
Date Index
][
Thread Index
]
we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
To
:
ietf-imapext@xxxxxxx
Subject
: we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
From
: Arnt Gulbrandsen <
arnt@xxxxxxxx
>
Date
: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:22:01 +0100
In-reply-to
: <
BnLUz+OOPWg2Iuae01CAug.md5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
List-archive
: <
http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/
>
List-id
: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe
: <
mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe
>
References
: <
200611211403.12916.martin.konold@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <
BnLUz+OOPWg2Iuae01CAug.md5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
Sender
:
owner-ietf-imapext@xxxxxxxxxxxx
So maybe the final RFC should name the capability LISTEXT, too. We refer
to all the other extensions by their capability name, and we don't seem
to like the name LIST-EXTENDED...
Arnt
Follow-Ups
:
Re: we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
From:
Alexey Melnikov
Re: we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
From:
Ken Murchison
Re: we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
From:
Dave Cridland
Prev by Date:
Re: IDLEPLUS extension
Next by Date:
Re: we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
Previous by thread:
IDLEPLUS extension
Next by thread:
Re: we all refer to LISTEXT as LISTEXT
Index(es):
Date
Thread