On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Look at the ANNOTATE drafts.
FWIW - I agree with this. Message metadata (as opposed to message data) is the ideal location for dynamic data, flags being the most basic example. I also fail to understand what the difficulty is with creating a new instance (thus a new UID) of a message if it is desired to alter its message data (as opposed to metadata), then expunge the old instance. This will cause every client in the world to recognize that its older cached copy is no longer valid, and that it must get the new version. It seems to me that the notion of changing message data without changing UIDs buys nothing. It destroys the benefit of the UID as an identifier of a particular instance of the message -- thus creating a substantial burden for servers and/or clients to get the word out that cached data is no longer valid. I remain bewildered as to what benefit this is supposed to accomplish. I've read the messages both to the group and in private email, and still am no closer to understanding the point of this proposal. All I can see is the danger of mass havoc that it would wreak. If the idea is to have a single address (e.g. an IMAP URL) for a particular data item that will change (e.g. today's stock report), why not just have the "address" be the mailbox name and let the client read whatever happens to be there at the time. With servers that offer fast mailbox metadata access via STATUS, a client can even determine if there's anything new there without having to open the mailbox. Clients today would work that way with no modification. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
