Keith... I made a suggestion that I think addresses your concern as
previously expressed, but you don't respond to that. Viz:
[[[[
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.
]]
]]]] -- http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/mail-archive/msg04050.html
If developers don't choose to deploy imap: in the face of such a comment,
then I submit that they are never likely to do so at the exhortation of any
standard.
I think there's a real danger that your quest for something else will
impede the standardization of a Really Useful Feature, for which there is
running code. I think I have heard you subscribe to the idea that the best
is the enemy of the good in standards development ... I think this could be
a shining case in point.
What is it that you want to happen to this proposal?
#g
--
PS: FWIW, I use the feature described on an almost-daily basis, and I find
that using a browser to search email archives is not at all
perverse. Quite often, I find myself switching between a mail archive and
Google to track down information, and the browser is a natural user
interface that spans both of these. The feature described here is really
very useful and is deployed today (modulo an X- at the front of the header
field name).
At 19:38 23/02/04 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
While that might be true in principle, it's not true in practice. A mail
reader is much more likely to be able to make effective use of an IMAP URL
than an HTTP URL. And it's more likely to do a good job handling a
message/rfc822 resource than with a text message encoded as
text/html. There's something perverse in asking a mail reader to fire up
a web browser to read an email message. And for some strange reason I
think that extensions to the email format that exist for the purpose of
reading mail should be usable by mail readers.
------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact