Re: [sieve] Late breaing issue in draft-freed-sieve-in-xml-06.txt

[Aaron Stone <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 26, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail] 
 > wrote:

>> So what do we do about this? There are basically four options:
>>
>> (1) Drop the use of XML Schema and just have an RNG grammar.
>>
>> (2) Remove the ability to have displaydata, comments, and elements  
>> from other
>>   namespaces appear in a command element after the test clause.  
>> This means
>>   something like
>>
>>   <control name="if">
>>     <test name="header">
>>       <tag>is</tag>
>>       <str>Sender</str>
>>       <str>[e-mail]</str>
>>     </test>
>>     <action name="fileinto">
>>       <str>filter</str>
>>     </action> <comment>move to "filter" mailbox</comment>
>>   </control>
>>
>>   is no longer valid. It would have to be written as:
>>
>>   <control name="if">
>>     <test name="header">
>>       <tag>is</tag>
>>       <str>Sender</str>
>>       <str>[e-mail]</str>
>>     </test>
>>     <action name="fileinto">
>>       <str>filter</str>
>>       <comment>move to "filter" mailbox</comment>
>>     </action>
>>   </control>
>>
>> (3) Switch to using XML comments instead of <comment> elements.  
>> Note that
>>   this addresses the issue for comments only; we'd still have to  
>> drop the
>>   ability to have material from other namespaces or displaydata  
>> appear
>>   after the test clause.
>>
>> (4) Use a wrapper element to disambiguate the schema. This would mean
>>   writing something like this:
>>
>>   <control name="if">
>>     <test name="header">
>>       <tag>is</tag>
>>       <str>Sender</str>
>>       <str>[e-mail]</str>
>>     </test>
>>     <action name="fileinto">
>>       <str>filter</str>
>>     </action>
>>     <postamble>
>>       <comment>move to "filter" mailbox</comment>
>>     </postamble>
>>   </control>
> ...
>> My personal preference (and I believe it is Sai's as well because  
>> it was his
>> idea) is (4). And I prefer to add two wrappers, not one. The  
>> additional
>> elements are ugly, but this gives us the most flexibility and  
>> doesn't lose any
>> capabilities.
>
> I'm happy with 2 and 4.  If we use 4, I agree that we should add  
> both wrappers.
>

I personally prefer 2 because it connects the comment with the action  
(with the caveat that I'm not sure how the parser divines this from  
sieve syntax). Option 4 does not appear to be able to represent  
multiple interleaved comments and actions.

Aaron