> >> Section 3.3 third paragraph: NOT and neither form a double negative, the
> >> phrase should use either instead of neither:
> >> The server MUST NOT leave a message in either mailbox
> >
> > Absolutely not! The double negative is quite necessary and
> > intentional. One possible outcome if the MOVE of a single message
> > should fail internally would be that the message would be in *neither*
> > mailbox... perhaps the server removed it from the source mailbox
> > before putting it into the target, and there was some internal error,
> > server crash, or power failure at that point. This is saying that
> > such a thing MUST NOT happen.
> >
> > [KMM]: I think the correct grammar is to say either instead of neither
> > and it has the same meaning that you intended. The message would
> > not be in either mailbox.
I'm going to have to push back just a bit here: Double negatives are *not* ipso
facto incorrect grammar. In fact the only case where they should be considered
bad grammar is when they are used incorrectly. The standard example of this is,
"I didn't see noone.", which actualy means, "I saw someone", and that's pretty
certain not to be the speaker's intent.
Far better authors than anyone party to this conversation have written things
like, "There never was no man nowhere so virtuous", so you'll have to pardon me
if I take exception to what's being asserted here.
Of course this doesn't mean the present usage isn't confusing. On that score I
also disagree - I think you're on outlier here - but I'm not sufficiently
enamoured of the present text to object to changing it.
> I think you're wrong. "MUST NOT be in either mailbox" would mean that
> it's not in Apple and it's also not in Banana. Which is what you say
> in your last comment, but it's not what we're trying to say. There's
> nothing grammatically or semantically wrong with the sentence as
> written, and it says exactly what it's meant to say: that you MUST NOT
> have the message be not in Apple and also not in Banana -- you have to
> make sure it remains in one or the other.
> Notwithstanding that it's correct, if a native English speaker can't
> understand it, then it needs to be re-written (though we thought it
> was nice and elegant as it is; sigh -- elegance has to give way to
> understanding).
This principle, taken to its logical conclusion, results in an unsupportable
state of affairs. Like it or not, any text we write is going to be confusing to
someone, somewhere, and a line has to be drawn or we'll never be able to finish
anything.
I speak as someone who has been on the receiving end of comments on the MIME
specification for 20+ years, so this is something I know a *lot* about.
The only sensible policy is to include the possibility that the text as written
actually is quite clear, and for whatever reason the reviewer's (lack of)
understanding does not in fact indicate that there is a problem.
This point isn't going to change the outcome in the present case, but I want to
be clear that I strongly object to the general principle stated here.
> If I re-write the whole paragraph like this, is the whole thing clearer to
> you?:
> Because a MOVE applies to a set of messages, it might fail partway
> through the set. Regardless of whether the command is successful in
> moving the entire set, each individual message SHOULD either be moved
> or unaffected. The server MUST leave each message in a state where
> it is in at least one of the source or target mailboxes (no message can
> be lost or orphaned). The server SHOULD NOT leave any message in
> both mailboxes (it would be bad for a partial failure to result in a bunch
> of duplicate messages). This is true even if the server returns a tagged
> NO response to the command.
I think this actually makes the prohibition against losing messages a bit less
clear, but it significantly improves the discussion of the "leave the message
in both mailboxes" case, so overall it's an improvement and I'm going to put it
in.
> >> Section 3.3 paragraph 5, can you add more context or clean up the
> >> paragraph to make it easier to follow:
> >> "Note that the server may send EXPUNGEs for other messages as well, if
> >> any happen to have been expunged at the same time; this is normal
> >> IMAP operation."
> >
> > No further context is needed for anyone familiar with IMAP. The IMAP
> > protocol allows the server to send EXPUNGE responses for any message
> > at any time, and this is just a reminder of that. It could be
> > removed, and it would change nothing. But it would be a bad idea to
> > repeat what's explained at length in RFC 3501.
> >
> > [KMM]: By context, I only meant on the wording, not references to other
> > RFCs. Reading through this sentence, it would be helpful to know that you
> > are talking about unrelated expunge operations, at least I think that is
> > what
> > was intended and think it would be helpful to clarify that point with a few
> > extra words.
> Hm. I'm still thinking that this is entirely unnecessary, because,
> really, anyone familiar enough with IMAP to consider implementing this
> will know exactly what this means. I'll propose something, and we'll
> see if the editors think it's useful to change:
> OLD
> Note that the server may send EXPUNGEs for other messages as well, if
> any happen to have been expunged at the same time; this is normal
> IMAP operation.
> NEW
> It is always the case in normal IMAP operation that the server might
> also send EXPUNGE responses that are not related to the MOVE, such
> as for other messages that happen to have been expunged at the same
> time.
Ick. "It is always the case" is one of several circumlocutory phrases I'm trying
to stop using, so no, I don't think this is useful change to make.
I much prefer this alternative Kathleen suggested in a subsequent message:
> NEW
> Note that the server may send unrelated EXPUNGE messages as well, if
> any happen to have been expunged at the same time; this is normal
> IMAP operation.
I think this is a good change to make so I'm including it.
> >> Section 4.3, last sentence:
> >> Replace 'that' with whatever it is referring to as it is not clear to the
> >> reader.
> >> "It can be unnecessarily difficult to process that usefully.)"
> >
> > Would "that sequence" make it clearer for you?
> >
> > [KMM]: Yes, "the sequence" works once you add the word sequence. At the
> > start of the parens, replacing 'it' would be helpful as well.
> NEW
> (Sending COPYUID in the tagged OK, as described in the UIDPLUS
> specification, means that clients first receive an EXPUNGE for a
> message and afterwards COPYUID for the same message. It can be
> unnecessarily difficult to process that sequence usefully.)
Yes, this is quite a bit better. Changed.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
