Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] Fwd: Re: WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

On 08/02/2017 14:22, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:52:00PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Agreed. JMAP and IMAP are likely to co-exist for long time.
> Isn't that exactly the complaint?  Something like, "Long periods of
> co-existence need to have lots of benefits or an existential one, or
> else they're not a good idea."
They have slightly different audiences. People who want to do something 
like JMAP are already doing something like JMAP. They might or might not 
care about IMAP. People who are doing IMAP and not webmail might not 
care about JMAP.
It is not yet clear to me that JMAP will replace IMAP. But I don't think 
this is a reason not to let JMAP progress.

Best Regards,
Alexey