On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 05:19:03PM +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 15:49 +0200, Michael Haardt wrote:
The user could have meant to use mailto, because he set a :from, but
then typed sms as method. Or he could have meant sms, but typed from
by mistake. That's the problem with overloading: You don't select
methods by name, but by signature, and if signatures don't match, you
have no idea what could have been meant.
you _do_ select the method by name. don't try to be smart, use the
scheme the user has named. if the user makes a typo in the scheme name,
that is no different from any other typo in a Sieve script.
Do you say that the :method option is more important than :from? I
can not justify that, but if we make the :method string mandatory,
things are different.
Putting all possible options in the notify spec, no matter if as syntactic
elements, or as generic attribute-value pairs, solves this problem:
The method decides which options to look at and other options are ignored.
That's a rule users can understand very well.
no, that's much more confusing. silently ignoring, say, :from, is not
helpful to the user who wonders why the sender address is wrong ("it
worked with mailto!")
That's a different issue. Options not used by a specific method could
be ignored or cause an error. I tend to agree with you on this, and
if the method is indeed mandatory, the specification would be very easy
to understand.
Michael