draft-ietf-imapext-sort-07.txt   draft-ietf-imapext-sort-08.txt 
IMAP Extensions Working Group M. Crispin IMAP Extensions Working Group M. Crispin
INTERNET-DRAFT: IMAP SORT K. Murchison INTERNET-DRAFT: IMAP SORT K. Murchison
Document: internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imapext-sort-07.txt July 2001 Document: internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imapext-sort-08.txt January 2002
INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT EXTENSION INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - SORT EXTENSION
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
A revised version of this document will be submitted to the RFC A revised version of this document will be submitted to the RFC
editor as an Informational Document for the Internet Community. editor as an Informational Document for the Internet Community.
A revised version of this draft document, describing an expanded A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
version of this protocol extension, will be submitted to the RFC editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. Discussion
editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should be sent to
ietf-imapext@IMC.ORG. This document will expire before 4 July 2002.
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
be sent to ietf-imapext@IMC.ORG. This document will expire before 27
January 2002. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes an experimental server-based sorting This document describes an experimental server-based sorting
extension to the IMAP4rev1 protocol, as implemented by the University extension to the IMAP4rev1 protocol, as implemented by the University
of Washington's IMAP toolkit. This extension provides substantial of Washington's IMAP toolkit. This extension provides substantial
performance improvements for IMAP clients which offer sorted views. performance improvements for IMAP clients which offer sorted views.
A server which supports this extension indicates this with a A server which supports this extension indicates this with a
capability name of "SORT". Client implementations SHOULD accept any capability name of "SORT". Client implementations SHOULD accept any
skipping to change at page 5, line 30 skipping to change at page 5, line 30
CC CC
RFC-822 local-part of the first "cc" address. RFC-822 local-part of the first "cc" address.
DATE DATE
Sent date and time from the Date: header, adjusted by time Sent date and time from the Date: header, adjusted by time
zone. This differs from the SENTON criteria in SEARCH, which zone. This differs from the SENTON criteria in SEARCH, which
uses just the date and not the time, nor adjusts by time zone. uses just the date and not the time, nor adjusts by time zone.
FROM FROM
RFC-822 local-part of the "From" address. RFC-822 local-part of the first "From" address.
REVERSE REVERSE
Followed by another sort criterion, has the effect of that Followed by another sort criterion, has the effect of that
criterion but in reverse order. criterion but in reverse order.
Note: REVERSE only reverses a single criterion, and does not Note: REVERSE only reverses a single criterion, and does not
affect the implicit "sequence number" sort criterion if all affect the implicit "sequence number" sort criterion if all
other criteria are identicial. Consequently, a sort of other criteria are identicial. Consequently, a sort of
REVERSE SUBJECT is not the same as a reverse ordering of a REVERSE SUBJECT is not the same as a reverse ordering of a
SUBJECT sort. SUBJECT sort.
This can be avoided by use of additional criteria, e.g. This can be avoided by use of additional criteria, e.g.
skipping to change at page 9, line 34 skipping to change at page 9, line 34
Note: this means, among other things, that the composed Note: this means, among other things, that the composed
characters in the Latin-1 Supplement are not compared in characters in the Latin-1 Supplement are not compared in
what would be considered an ISO 8859-1 "case-insensitive" what would be considered an ISO 8859-1 "case-insensitive"
fashion. Case comparison rules for characters with fashion. Case comparison rules for characters with
diacriticals differ between languages; the minimum sorting diacriticals differ between languages; the minimum sorting
collation does not attempt to deal with this at all. This collation does not attempt to deal with this at all. This
is reserved for other sorting collations, which may be is reserved for other sorting collations, which may be
language-specific. language-specific.
;;; *** ITEM FOR DISCUSSION ***
;;; THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT THIS MINIMUM COLLATION IS TOO MINIMAL,
;;; AND THAT THE "GENERIC UNICODE SORTING COLLATION" DISCUSSED BELOW
;;; NEEDS TO BE THE MINIMUM. ONE SUGGESTION IS UNICODE TECHNICAL
;;; STANDARD 10 (TR-10). IF THIS IS THE MINIMUM, THAT REQUIRES THAT
;;; ALL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF SORT AND THREAD BE UNICODE-SAVVY AT LEAST
;;; TO THE POINT OF IMPLEMENTATION TR-10. IS THIS REALISTIC? DOES
;;; THIS RAISE EXCESSIVE IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS?
Other sorting collations, and the ability to change the sorting Other sorting collations, and the ability to change the sorting
collation, will be defined in a separate document dealing with IMAP collation, will be defined in a separate document dealing with IMAP
internationalization. internationalization.
It is anticipated that there will be a generic Unicode sorting It is anticipated that there will be a generic Unicode sorting
collation, which will provide generic case-insensitivity for collation, which will provide generic case-insensitivity for
alphabetic scripts, specification of composed character handling, and alphabetic scripts, specification of composed character handling, and
language-specific sorting collations. A server which implements language-specific sorting collations. A server which implements
non-default sorting collations will modify its sorting behavior non-default sorting collations will modify its sorting behavior
according to the selected sorting collation. according to the selected sorting collation.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/