--On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:34:46 AM +0200 Stephan Bosch
<stephan(_at_)rename-it(_dot_)nl> wrote:
There's also the possibility of doing something akin to how the
current regex
draft uses comparators - as a means of identifying a canonicalization
and what
constitutes a unit of comparison. Do we want to allow that sort of use
with
:list?
Hmm, well.... why not? I suggest we make it an error only when the list
has no explicit use for it, meaning that implementors MAY accept
comparators for an external list, but MUST trigger an error when the list
does not use the specified comparator or the comparator is incompatible
somehow.
I guess the main question is: what would be the disadvantage of providing
more flexibility to the implementor for the interaction of :list with
comparators?
This sounds like an interoperability nightmare. You describe a situation
where a SIEVE implementation has the option to accept comparators or not,
but if not, then providing them is an error, and there is no way for the
producer of the sieve script to know in advance what will happen.
This is _not_ analogous to comparators that work with :is but not with
:matches or :contains, because you can know from the specifications which
combinations are acceptable and which will produce errors.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
sieve mailing list
sieve(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sieve