Re: [Jmap] Adding the Message::isForwarded property

[Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, at 10:08 AM, Neil Jhaveri wrote:

> I seem to be on the minority side here, but I personally do see the
> appeal in **isForwarded** being a first-class property. This is a core
> part of many modern client UI's showing a list of messages. If I had
> never used IMAP before, it would definitely seem weird and incongruent
> to me that answered is a property, but forwarded is a keyword,


This is a good point. From a pure conceptual view it *is* weird and
inconsistent.


> If there does end up being more support for this, I could see an
> argument for drawing a line in the sand on the most important
> keywords, and maybe upgrading $Junk/$NotJunk and $Phishing into first-
> class properties too. Other keywords like $SubmitPending and
> $Submitted seem to have their use cases handled quite differently in
> JMAP with the Outbox concept, so could be left alone in a raw keywords
> property.


Yes, I think this is worth considering. It provides a better interface
to this functionality. The main downside is when a new IANA keyword is
registered, at first it would just appear in the keywords property. Then
in the next JMAP spec version you would probably have it added as a
message property (and therefore disappear from the keywords array), and
so you would potentially need client code to handle both paths.
Although, maybe not if the JMAP spec revision could happen reasonably
quickly (and arguably it's a way of knowing the server does something
with this flag, which is the whole point of them, so you never need to
handle the keywords option).


Neil.