Re: [Imap-protocol] Email charset statistics

Sure, my issue wasn't that I preferred 5738.

Brandon


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Joseph Yee <[email protected]> wrote:

> Off my mind RFC6855 reduces lots of UTF8=* overheads (and headaches)
> and makes ENABLE call much better.
>
> I have to read both again to confirm, but the old RFC had many
> overheads for different mode (UTF8 or not) to too many commands, and
> now (RFC6855) only APPEND has new extension.
>
> I suggest to ignore RFC5738 at all if you care for implementation
> only.  RFC6855 was written to cover all extension needed for UTF8
> without the need to touch RFC5738.
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:07:45 PM CEST, Brandon Long wrote:
> >>
> >> Didn't remember the exact rfc and did a quick search to find it.  Yes, I
> >> meant 6855... which really could use more information on how its
> different
> >> from 5738, as I look at both right now.  6855 just says it obsoletes
> 5738.
> >
> >
> > I suppose it could do with a bit more.
> >
> > 6855 started as 5738 with a random smattering of improvements (I didn't
> pay
> > attention at the start). Then I tried to implement it and protested
> against
> > various brain damage, and in one quick jabber session, 5738bis lost every
> > feature I hated. I was so surprised that I'm not sure I remembered to
> > mention everything. Then Dave Cridland suggested better quoting, and then
> > the RFC was published.
> >
> > What badness do you see in 6855?
> >
> >
> > Arnt
> > _______________________________________________
> > Imap-protocol mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
>

_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol