[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SORT on addresses
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
it seems to me that this behaviour is mostly useful in "old-skool"
environments, where username@host was common. e.g., I could be
kjetilho@xxxxxxxxxx, kjetilho@xxxxxxxxxx or kjetilho@xxxxxxxxxxxx
depending on which workstation I was logged in that day. I sincerely
doubt this is widespread today.
Please be assured that it is still quite common and still very much a fact
of life for many people.
* will end-users think that changing the sort key to be the
complete RFC2822 addr-spec (or RFC2822 group) is an improvement?
my answer is, to the extent they notice it, an emphatic yes.
What surety is there that such is the case? Your opinion that this is an
"improvement" has been noted. That does not constitute research.
* is it problematic that current deployments of the draft break
my answer is, not really. this is not a behavioural change which
affects clients, it only affects the humans who use the clients.
A change in behavior that has been implemented and documented for over a
decade is quite problematic.
A declaration that software which has been distributed for more than a
decade is suddenly "non-compliant" is quite problematic.
The only reason why SORT is "still a draft" is that it got hung up on i18n
collation. SORT has been a cast-in-stone specification for production
software for many years. It can not be arbitrarily changed.
Now, with that said, I would not oppose a SORTEXT proposal that adds new
keys (as opposed to changing the current keys) that work as you propose.
-- Mark --
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.