Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?

["Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 [...]

> 2. a decision will also need to be taken about the mixture of domains.
> mixing sieve with annotations about sieve means that the schema has to
> be edited (to separate these concerns) before being used in modern
> generators. unless this is supported at least implicitly by the
> specification, it just means that an alternative specification will be
> needed for these use cases.

I take this to mean that you want separate namespaces for annotations and sieve
proper. I'm against this because I dislike the complexity it adds, which I see
as unnecessary. And unless there's some evidence of support for your view from
other quarters I'm not going to revisit this.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but I fail to see why it would be necessary to use a different namespace for Sieve comments. Programs that interpret Sieve from XML representation would just ignore such elements. Programs that generate XML representation automatically (e.g. from some rule based UI) are unlikely to generate them anyway.

Am I missing some use cases?