On 2/13/2017 9:17 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
I don't think this is true.
...
JMAP, on the other hand, can cope with both gmail style labels and IMAP-style mailboxes, by stated design.
The constraints/flexibility of an effort depend on the goals it asserts and the support for those goals. I think it's dandy to target an access protocol that is substantially different from the features/style/whatever of IMAP. The requirements are to be very clear about the features/style/whatever of the new effort, very clear about the expected benefits, and very clear about the support for that.
Given the long history of IMAP, the proposed JMAP effort should offer clear assertions of the relative differences and benefits of the new effort, to aid in assessing likely appeal of the effort.
So, for example, the above comment about JMAP's handling of different reference models is substantive and appealing. However the various notes that have been posted about JMAP leave me thinking that there is less clarity about the effort than one would like, among JMAP's supporters.
The embodiment of the clarity needs to be the charter text and I don't think it's made its case well enough. For example, I don't see a reference to the ability to support different referencing models.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net