Re: New Internet Draft: draft-duerst-archived-at-00.txt

Bruce Lilly writes:
> Graham Klyne wrote:
> > That said, I see no reason why the URI specified should not be an IMAP URI.
> Or POP. Browser support for the POP URI scheme is also an issue for 
> that, though it would likely be much easier to add support for POP 
> than for IMAP since the POP protocol is simpler.
IMAP certainly is more complex than POP, but I'm not sure that's 
relevant to this issue.
If all you want to do is fetch a single message based on a URL, using 
IMAP should be about as much work as POP. Things like IMAP's complex 
support for server-side search don't matter to this simple task.
Arnt