On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:53:15AM -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > What I would really like us to focus on here, is not IMAP5 per se, > but instead a "generic" mail store access API.
Absolutely - this is what I've been saying (or at least trying to say) all along! Though I would say "API _and_ data model". And of course complience tests that ensure the API and the data model are correct. > Lets define the key > operations needed by clients and a server API that can provide those > behaviors. Once we have that, we can fit it into any protocol we > like, be it extensions to IMAP4 (to make IMAP5), HTTP, XMPP > whatever. The same thing can be done for a calendar store api (and > indeed the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium has been working on > generic abstractions giving rise to REST and SOAP based protocols > all built on the same store api model used by CalDAV). Yes please. As I've said, I'm really happy to spend a lot of time on this. My initial posts were largely grown from the frustration of seeing IMAP5 discussions bogging down in silly little bits of custom syntax and bandaids. I will continue with my initial task of accumulating all the relevant RFCs and documenting the pain points they solved. I don't know all of them yet! Bron. _______________________________________________ imap5 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
