W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2010

RE: Review: browser use case; e-mail compatibility? (Re: Message API Status)

From: Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:24:37 -0500
Message-ID: <D37CC1B151BD57489F4F89609F168FE80699675E@XCH01DFW.rim.net>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>
Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>, María Ángeles Oteo <maoteo@novanotio.es>, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 4:40 AM
To: Suresh Chitturi
Cc: Thomas Roessler; Robin Berjon; María Ángeles Oteo; Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; public-device-apis@w3.org
Subject: Re: Review: browser use case; e-mail compatibility? (Re: Message API Status)

On 18 Aug 2010, at 16:09, Suresh Chitturi wrote:

> Robin, all,
> 
> I would be generally cautious with this approach with different flavors of email implementations. Here are a couple of (broad) initial concerns:
> 
> - Binding the API to a specific RFC will cause implementations to translate the headers to their own implementation

> - Will require developers to do all the formatting to the according to the RFC (besides typed approach is preferred in a API over a typed approach)

I don't understand what this means.  RFC 5822 is the current standard for e-mail.

The choice I suggested was to model things in terms of that standard.

Robin suggested to use plain strings and leave parsing of e-mail headers to Web Applications. I think that that's probably a bad idea -- I'd be happy if implementations of the API got this right, and I'm nervous about web applications doing so.

Suresh>> Sorry for not being clear. My worry is also on using a plain string approach for parsing all the headers as opposed to a more granular user/developer friendly API similar to our current draft. Regarding modeling, I don't see it as a problem if we want to be compatible with the RFC as much as possible while trying to keeping it at a reasonable size.

I think you mean RFC 5322? I don't see many hits with 5822 on the web.

Suresh

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 16:25:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:22 UTC