[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 00:22 -0500, Barry Leiba wrote:
> For the former: the lemonade extension adds a reserved variable which
> I'm currently calling "IMAPSieve.cause". Its value is the action that
> caused the script to be run ("APPEND", "COPY", and so on). It occurs
> to me that it'll be awkward for scripts to have to wonder what the
> absence of that variable means. Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a
> reserved namespace called "Sieve.", and to have a variable called
> "Sieve.cause" that's ALWAYS available if variables are supported? In
> the normal case, its value would be "DELIVERY", and extensions like
> mine can specify other values. (This might also add an IANA item....)
okay, so you think this namespace should be defined in the variables
draft? I'm not too wild with the idea, since I really wanted -08 which
I submitted yesterday to finally reach RFC status.
I couldn't find your posting to the lemonade list, but I'm not on it, so
it may be the archiving software acting slow. I would expect the
extension to be required by anyone wanting to inspect that variable, and
so I don't see much benefit to making it a globally available variable.
there is something to be said for making namespaces an IANA item.
currently, it says the namespace SHOULD have the same name as the
extension. this doesn't guarantee uniqueness, but the publishing
process for RFCs should be sufficient to stop that from happening, IMHO.
if we did have a IANA registry for it, we could use more finegrained
delegations, so that one extension could handle Sieve.Foo and another
Sieve.Bar. the benefit seems slight, though.
> For the latter: Can we please add an example of the use of the
> namespace attribute? It's not explained terribly well, and there are
> no examples.
hmm, I would have to invent an extension for the example, I guess. what
do you think is unclear about the explanation?