[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-sieve-notify-05.txt

2006-12-19 01:39:32

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:29:31PM -0000, Aaron Stone wrote:
I recognize that the point of notifications is to provide "one-liner"
updates, but giving different names to the subject and body fields isn't
good, and then using the subject/body distinction present in xmpp vs. mail
in opposite ways isn't good, either.

I'm definitely bringing up more than a WGLC should. Oops.

If instead we had:

   Usage:  notify 
           [":from" string]
           [":importance" <"1" / "2" / "3">]
           [":options" string-list]
           [":subject" string]
           [":message" string]
           "method:" string 

Let's forget about XMPP and mailto for a second, as notify is a generic
framework.  The question is: Do we view abstract notification messages
in general to be tagged with a subject, with a few real methods not
offering one (like SMS), or do we view them being untagged with a few
real methods offering one (like mailto)?

To me, a notification is the second.  Notes attached to the refridgerator
do not have a subject, neither do messages in IRC or SMS. ICQ I don't
know. (Comsat? Never mind. ;) We will find a bunch attributes more offered
by at least one real method, and that's exactly why we have ":options".

That's why I vote against introducing ":subject".  To me, the karma of
a message does not include a subject. ;)