Re: Broaching the idea of ANNOTATE-LESS (a.k.a COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Cyrus,

Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> My comment to Dan on this was that it might make sense to have a way 
> to "profile" ANNOTATE so that servers could offer limited portions of 
> it. e.g. a server might choose not to implement either SORT'ing or 
> SEARCH'ing on annotations and that could be indicated via 
> ANNOTATE-NOSORT and ANNOTATE-NOSEARCH capabilities.

I can see a reason for ANNOTATE-NOSORT, but why ANNOTATE-NOSEARCH? This 
is just making something already complex even more complex.

> e.g. if a server wanted to support a limited set of entries, then a 
> new 'ALLOWEDENTRIES' option to SELECT could be used to return the set 
> of supported entries on a mailbox (e.g. just "/comment" in Dan's 
> example) - this could also cover support for .priv and .shared.
>
> The benefit of doing this, rather than inventing a new extension with 
> new syntax, is that it offers an upgrade path to full annotate. It 
> also means that anyone implementing full annotate on a client will be 
> able to easily handle "less capable" servers by simply looking at what 
> is supported. I think this is better than having two extension. This 
> could be done as a follow-up to the current "experiment".

+1