Re: IMAP definitions on threading

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

--On torsdag, juni 02, 2005 10:58:16 -0700 John Stanley <[e-mail]> 
wrote:

> Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> John, I believe you are using language stronger than is justified.
>
> I see nothing improper in my language.
>
>> If you check out draft-ietf-imapext-thread-13 (the draft is expired,
>> unfortunately), you will find the method called ORDEREDSUBJECT referred
>> to  as "threading" -
>
> And obviously since it is in an IETF draft it is gospel. I shudder to
> think how many patently wrong things have appeared in USEFOR IETF draft
> products in the past, but apparently I should assume that every other WG
> never says anything daffy in their drafts.
>
>> ... the fact that you do not like this particular name for this way of
>> ordering messages does not mean that you have the right to claim that it
>> "does not exist".
>
> First of all, I did not claim that "that way of ordering articles" does
> not exist. I've been pretty clear that I understand that it is done, and
> that we have no control over it being done that way. So, implying that
> I've said "it does not exist" is nonsense.

Your particular words that I found too strong were:

> Threading on Subject does not exist.

I pointed to the particular IMAP draft as an example of a person using the 
word "threading" to describe something very like what you don't want to 
call "threading".

You may have a definition of "threading" that makes the IMAP command THREAD 
ORDEREDSUBJECT do something that doesn't fit your definition, so you may 
want to say that "THREAD ORDEREDSUBJECT" is not threading.

Your problem. But your claim that this definition is "the truth" is too 
strong for my taste.

                     Harald