On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Tim Showalter wrote:Can we update the next revision of IMAP4rev1 to recommend this behavior?
I tried to spend a few minutes thinking about this over the past couple days.
Mark's implementation is certainly more powerful, although I still find it
really odd. I can't get a good counter argument going.
Yes, it is odd, but it seems to be more useful.
A year ago I've done the same change as Tim suggested (a.b.c.d) in M-Store, but I agree that Mark's interpretation has its advantages.
AlexeyEither a.b.c.d or a.c.d is better than a.bc.d, and given Pine is the dominant
user of this, perhaps a.c.d is the better answer. I don't think I like it,
actually, but it's better to have one interpretation in the wild than two (or
three, which is where I think we currently are).
I don't know if I was unclear, but Pine does not use this particular
feature of references. Pine always uses references with the trailing
hierarchy delimiter.
