[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists] Proposed Addition To =?utf-8?q?=09Section=20=32=2E=34?=
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:07:36 -0700, 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
>> 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?
[Still an IC:]
Sorry, I didn't read the original comment and text. Of course this is
exactly what's at issue.
Personally, I'm concerned about potential ugliness of the identifiers if a
UI thinks it's hidden, but that's kind of an omnipresent issue around here.
I do like the idea of just writing ':list "MyList"' and not needed much
else. It does seem a bit overkill to be typing my own email address into
the Sieve script for the very same account.