ietf-mta-filters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [sieve] Late breaing issue in draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-06.txt

2009-08-27 02:02:24


On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com > wrote:

So what do we do about this? There are basically four options:

(1) Drop the use of XML Schema and just have an RNG grammar.

(2) Remove the ability to have displaydata, comments, and elements from other namespaces appear in a command element after the test clause. This means
  something like

  <control name="if">
    <test name="header">
      <tag>is</tag>
      <str>Sender</str>
      <str>owner-ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org</str>
    </test>
    <action name="fileinto">
      <str>filter</str>
    </action> <comment>move to "filter" mailbox</comment>
  </control>

  is no longer valid. It would have to be written as:

  <control name="if">
    <test name="header">
      <tag>is</tag>
      <str>Sender</str>
      <str>owner-ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org</str>
    </test>
    <action name="fileinto">
      <str>filter</str>
      <comment>move to "filter" mailbox</comment>
    </action>
  </control>

(3) Switch to using XML comments instead of <comment> elements. Note that this addresses the issue for comments only; we'd still have to drop the ability to have material from other namespaces or displaydata appear
  after the test clause.

(4) Use a wrapper element to disambiguate the schema. This would mean
  writing something like this:

  <control name="if">
    <test name="header">
      <tag>is</tag>
      <str>Sender</str>
      <str>owner-ietf-mta-filters(_at_)imc(_dot_)org</str>
    </test>
    <action name="fileinto">
      <str>filter</str>
    </action>
    <postamble>
      <comment>move to "filter" mailbox</comment>
    </postamble>
  </control>
...
My personal preference (and I believe it is Sai's as well because it was his idea) is (4). And I prefer to add two wrappers, not one. The additional elements are ugly, but this gives us the most flexibility and doesn't lose any
capabilities.

I'm happy with 2 and 4. If we use 4, I agree that we should add both wrappers.


I personally prefer 2 because it connects the comment with the action (with the caveat that I'm not sure how the parser divines this from sieve syntax). Option 4 does not appear to be able to represent multiple interleaved comments and actions.

Aaron
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>