At 13:33 23/02/04 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> >1. I really don't think we should standardize a header field pointer to
> >mail archives that depends on HTML and HTTP.
> :
> >3. However, I don't think that we should limit such a standard to be
> >used exclusively with IMAP or any other protocol. Clearly it's much
> >easier to deploy HTTP archvies than IMAP archives.
>
> On this, we agree.
>
> And there is nothing in Martin's draft that has any such dependency.
I think there is an implied dependency of sorts. Without specifying how
to access archives in IMAP people are going to assume that HTTP is the
only thing that can be used. The danger is that we will paint ourselves
into a corner where we are stuck with using HTTP.
Is this extension for email readers or for web browsers?
Neither, or both. It's an extension to the message *format*, not the
protocol. Applications may use it (or not) as they see fit.
My mail reader recognizes the http: protocol in am x-archived-at header and
invokes a browser to retrieve and display the message. But I'd expect it
to respond differently to other URI schemes.
If you feel there's an implied dependency, maybe something like this could
be added to the text:
[[
One way to use this header field is to include an HTTP URI, which can be
passed to a web browser to retrieve and display a copy of the archived
message. But other URI schemes may be used, such as imap:, and mail
applications may use the information thus provided in any way that assists
access to archived mail messages.
]]
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact