|
So does this mean, that we should not support
"" and only support ()?
I guess thats what even the draft version suggests
when it states:
flag-list = "(" [flag *(SP flag)]
")"
Am I right?
~Dilip
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 3:38
AM
Subject: Re: IMAP Store Query
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Abhijit Menon-Sen
wrote:
>
> > At 2002-08-19 18:20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> > > "RFC2060 has an error in the definition of data-value.
The syntax allows
> > > the value to be empty, since '#flag'
includes zero instances of flag. The
> > > only valid way to
indicate "no flags" is to use an empty flag-list, that
> > > is,
'()'.
> > >
> > > So should a IMAP server support an
empty value?
> >
> > No.
>
> ABNF
disagrees.
Just to clarify what I really meant: the only way to
indicate "no flags" is to
specify empty list "()"
> > > Has
there been any updates on this part of RFC2060 after this?
>
>
> > The latest draft (draft-crispin-imapv-17.txt) updates the
grammar thus:
> >
> >
flag-list = "(" [flag *(SP flag)]
")"
>
> Thus the empty value MUST be supported.
>
>
> store-att-flags = (["+" / "-"] "FLAGS"
[".SILENT"]) SP
>
>
(flag-list / (flag *(SP flag)))
Regards,
Alexey
Melnikov
__________________________________________
R & D, ACI
Worldwide/MessagingDirect
Richmond, Surrey, UK
Phone: +44 20 8332
4508
Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel
I speak
for myself only, not for my
employer.
__________________________________________
|
