On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Rob Siemborski wrote: > I suppose this depends on your definition of harmless. I wouldn't want a > server that doesn't do this declared at all noncompliant.
Agreed; there is no harm in not doing this if the server does not have have such a thing as a \NoSelect name without children. Such servers aren't noncompliant (sorry for the double negative). But we do have to consider the case when a server has \NoSelect names without children. > I do not believe it is harmless in pathological cases like LIST "*/%" > where the output could be needlessly doubled by such behavior. Of course, > this is a pathological case. I don't think that we need to consider pathological cases; a client which invoked this gets what it deserves. > Indeed, I'd argue such a server (which does not have the \NoSelect with no > children case) is equally correct with an implementation that does not > omit foo/ from the list, since none of this special treatment of trailing > hierarchy delimiters (outside of CREATE) is discussed in the protocol > specifications. That is a problem; doing so creates ambiguity and misleads clients into incorrect behavior. We should not be recklessly making IMAP more ambiguous and less useful. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
