Re: [draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists] Proposed Addition To Section 2.4

[Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:23 PM, 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.

the location and interpretation of resources with arbitrary semantics
across arbitrary protocols is - i think - too difficult a problem to
be tackle by this draft. therefore, we should be satisfied now just by
specifying what we can and leaving these difficult interoperability
problems to other expert groups.

- robert