Re: [ietf-smtp] [imapext] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP

> These are just questions, not opposition, but the answers should
> probably be clear in any charter or chartering effort.
>
> (1) We've had a long history of variations on The Format to End
> All Formats, none of which have lasted a very long time.  I
> think JSON is better than most, but, if yet another wonderful
> format shows up in a few years and takes over, is it worth
> thinking now about what a transition plan would look like?
> (2) Some of us believe, ... because they operate
> in plain text, ...
I thought JSON was 7-bit, and required encoding to use 8-bit data portable.

So, if I am correct, then JSON is not a gain when it comes to non-text data?

> (3) ...  Seems
> to me that would promote much more compatibility and flexibility.
The complexity of the requests and replies are the issue. If its mostly 
converting IMAP to JSON, the same problems are going to exist.

--

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
DouglasRoyer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
714-989-6135

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

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