On 2010-01-25, at 20:33 , John C. Welch wrote: > > On 1/25/10 5:00 PM, "Caio Chassot" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Define "basics". That's really hard with IMAP. >> >> I'd start with "get email". > > Then you really don't' know much about how fun IMAP is as a spec. "Getting > email" has multiple meanings on IMAP.
Yet another reason to focus on it. > If it's how someone gets work done, why should they change for you? What is > objectively better about your way, better enough to switch years of muscle > memory? Not different, but better. Here's the deal. I prefer 3-column. I use mail as 3-pane because that's how it ships. I don't die inside because of that. I hear there's a plugin or something that'll make it 3-column. I don't even care to investigate. If you really think the position of a pane is a life-or-death situation, maybe you should fiercely focus on the death part. Until yesterday I was all about supporting any modes people wanted, because I thought, hell, how many bugs can ensure from rearranging panes. But then Brent issues his HERE BE DRAGONS warning, and I say, whatever, it's just panes. I can live with Mail, one should be able to live with 3-column. >> I know how this can go downhill very easily. It's important that we have a >> clear leader to ensure it doesn't, and guess what, we do. It's Gruber's call >> to say when 1.0 is good to go. I hope he'll not call it good until the plugin >> API is stable AND fully documented. >> >> Extensibility is a major project goal, we can't leave it half-done. > > If there's no documentation, it's half done I'm glad to see you rephrase my point. > I find that pessimism tracks reality better than blind optimism. I live in > the real world. It's a habit. I'm with you here. > So will this actually have a feature at all beyond network connections as a > 1.0? It's Gruber who makes the final cut. I'm sure it'll have some kind of Yankees support, at the very least. > Yeah. Stupid mainframes with deacde plus uptimes supporting tens of > thousands of users with a single box. How stupid was THAT. If you like big and old why aren't you doing email on emacs, again? > If you require full caching, you're saying "We only want indie devs and home > users." Or I'm saying, this is a Mac client and implementing the feature we want requires a local copy of every message. > That's hard to believe since you want damned near every point I bring off > shoved off to narnia. I'm sorry. Version 2. Forgive my cynicsm, but its > pretty obvious to me. And maybe it does warrant some clarification. Are we talking about Mac power users or IMAP power users? Or what particular mix of both? Genuine question. I want to hear from more people. I snipped most of your repeated jabs at how plugins are evil and this is a programmer only project. If there's any particular point you want addressed let me know. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
