Re: [sieve] Notify (RFC 5435) questions

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba wrote:

>>>I agree that it'd be better to put it into the variables spec.  You
>>>know I'm not suggesting going through everything to say where you can
>>>and can't do variable substitution; you should know me better than
>>>that.  But Hannah has a point: the variables spec says this:
>>>
>>>  This extension changes the semantics of quoted-string, multi-line-
>>>  literal and multi-line-dotstuff found in [SIEVE] to enable the
>>>  inclusion of the value of variables.
>>>
>>>...and the grammar for "importance" uses none of those three syntax
>>>constructions.  Taken at its word, that would imply that variable
>>>substitution doesn't apply here.      
>>>
>>I am fine with this being reported as an Erratum. Do you want to do that?
>>    
>>
>I said this in the same note:  
>
>>>We might change RFC 5229 to add that
>>>variables can substitute for literal strings as well.  Or we might
>>>decide that it's clear enough, and doesn't need changing.
>>>      
>>>
>...and no one's specifically commented on it.  If we have
>rough/vague/sorta-maybe consensus for making a small change to 5229,
>I'll submit an erratum.  Otherwise, we ought to leave it as is.  I
>particularly want to hear Ned's opinion, as well as, of course, those
>of others.
>
>The change I would propose is to make the quoted text, above, change to this:
>
>     This extension changes the semantics of quoted-string, multi-line-
>     literal and multi-line-dotstuff found in [SIEVE], including any
>literals that are
>     directly specified in the grammar, to enable the inclusion of the
>value of variables.
>
>As far as I can tell, that is the only place in RFC 5229 that says
>anything about what variables can substitute for.
>  
>
I think the Enotify spec needs to say that variable expansion applies to 
the importance field.

If you want to add a statement to the Variables spec, we can do that 
too. But I don't believe this would eliminate the need to clarify Enotify.