Re: [draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists] Proposed Addition To =?utf-8?q?=09Section=20=32=2E=34?=

[Aaron Stone <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:23:29 -0400, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba.mailing.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Use relative URIs to represent resources managed transparently by the
>> Sieve Engine.
> 
> This was my thought as well, when Alexey first brought the idea up.
> Originally, the idea was that the list name was just a string,
> understood by the Sieve processor.  It quickly became clear that that
> was problematic, and we should go with URIs.  Some thought they should
> always be absolute, and I thought relative ones should be allowed.  We
> batted that around for some while, and settled on absolute.
> 
> Apart from the reason you mention -- that it can be confusing -- the
> main argument against using relative URIs is the difficulty in clearly
> (and interoperably) defining what the relative ones mean.  Saying that
> the Sieve processor understands what they mean ignores the real
> problem with making sure the user (and/or the client) also understands
> it.
> 
> I think we should stay with absolute URIs.

[As IC:]

With the tag: URI scheme, you do get the effect of a server-specific URI,
and with a clear indication that that's what you're looking at (since it
begins literally with "tag:"). Does that address the concerns here?

Aaron