[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [draft-melnikov-sieve-external-lists] Proposed Addition To Section 2.4

2009-07-27 19:24:43

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:23:29 -0400, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Use relative URIs to represent resources managed transparently by the
Sieve Engine.

This was my thought as well, when Alexey first brought the idea up.
Originally, the idea was that the list name was just a string,
understood by the Sieve processor.  It quickly became clear that that
was problematic, and we should go with URIs.  Some thought they should
always be absolute, and I thought relative ones should be allowed.  We
batted that around for some while, and settled on absolute.

Apart from the reason you mention -- that it can be confusing -- the
main argument against using relative URIs is the difficulty in clearly
(and interoperably) defining what the relative ones mean.  Saying that
the Sieve processor understands what they mean ignores the real
problem with making sure the user (and/or the client) also understands

I think we should stay with absolute URIs.

[As IC:]

With the tag: URI scheme, you do get the effect of a server-specific URI,
and with a clear indication that that's what you're looking at (since it
begins literally with "tag:"). Does that address the concerns here?