Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> i note that the xml lacks a namespace.

Yes, but AFAIK nothing prevents you from assigning this vocabulary to a
namespace if you wanted to mix it with some other vocabulary. But since
the need for such mixing doesn't arise in the document itself, why
bother with the added complexity?

> could someone explain this design decision?

Well, I suppose this could have been done by having, say, one namespace for
Sieve stuff and another for annotations. But that adds a ton of complexity
with no real gains as far as I can see.

> i also note that there is no separate of concerns between the editor
> annotations and the substantive xml. could anyone explain this design
> decision?

Because it would add unnecessary complexity to the design. The implication that
editor annotations are insubstantive is also incorrect - in a GUI those
annotations are the focus and it's the Sieve content that's secondary.

				Ned