Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Yup.   The reason I keyed in on what you said is that I've had the
same thought about IMAP for a long time--I would like to have a much
less chatty sync process.

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I agree with almost everything you said here, Ned, except for the idea that
>> offline isn't important. For those of us who travel internationally, being
>> able to look up travel info on your phone before you have your
>> international SIM is crucial, and this is just one example of a situation
>> where this is important.
>
> There's a difference between being able to operate offline and a protocol
> specifically designed to support offline operation.
>
> As you note, the former is still useful, but is, as Doug notes, mostly a matter
> of client support. (Unfortunately, I suspect that as a practical matter you're
> going to have ever-increasing difficulty getting client developers to
> prioritize it.)
>
> To the extent it's a protocol issue, it's mostly a subset of the mobile
> sync problem.
>
> Or, to put it another way, it seems the mobile sync problem has more
> requirements and is more constrained than the offline sync problem. And for
> better or worse, the design focus of IMAP was and is on the offline sync
> problem.
>
> All that said, it's not entirely clear to me that the design focus of the
> current crop of JMAP proposals is geared towards the mobile client sync problem
> either. At least some of what I've seen seems more oriented towards support of
> business workflows, which is a very different (and IMO much simpler) problem.
>
>                                 Ned