On 12 February 2017 at 20:15, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Yes. See above. But note that "JMAP replaces IMAP" requires
that it support identical functionality, be a superset of IMAP
function, or drop only the functions that no one is using or
cares about. Note that I'm talking about functionality, not
syntax
I don't think this is true.
If JMAP is to supplant IMAP - and I think that's a worthy goal even if
its likelihood remains a matter for debate - then JMAP has to support
the same model.
The model of IMAP is that:
* Each message resides in a single mailbox,
* Each message has a set of independent flags,
* Each message is immutable.
(One could argue that other metadata exists, given ANNOTATE, but
nobody [to a reasonable approximation] uses ANNOTATE).
Gmail is an example of a case where the model of IMAP doesn't fit the
underlying data model - this is a shame, as IMAP's original design
took considerable effort to fit the wide, existing models of the time.
JMAP, on the other hand, can cope with both gmail style labels and
IMAP-style mailboxes, by stated design.
So I'm confident that, while your statement seems incorrect to me, the
corrected statement would be satisfied.
Dave.