draft-ietf-imapext-thread-07.txt   draft-ietf-imapext-thread-08.txt 
IMAP Extensions Working Group M. Crispin IMAP Extensions Working Group M. Crispin
Internet Draft: IMAP THREAD K. Murchison Internet Draft: IMAP THREAD K. Murchison
Document: internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imapext-thread-07.txt July 2001 Document: internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imapext-thread-08.txt January 2002
INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - THREAD EXTENSION INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - THREAD 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 31 skipping to change at page 1, line 31
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
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 draft document will be submitted to the RFC A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the RFC
editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community. Discussion
and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should be sent to
Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested, and should ietf-imapext@IMC.ORG. This document will expire before 4 July 2002.
be sent to ietf-imapext@IMC.ORG. This document will expire before 27 Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
January 2002. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the server-based threading extension to the This document describes the server-based threading extension to the
IMAP4rev1 protocol. This extension provides substantial performance IMAP4rev1 protocol. This extension provides substantial performance
improvements for IMAP clients which offer threaded views. improvements for IMAP clients which offer threaded views.
A server which supports this extension indicates this with one or A server which supports this extension indicates this with one or
more capability names consisting of "THREAD=" followed by a supported more capability names consisting of "THREAD=" followed by a supported
threading algorithm name as described in this document. This threading algorithm name as described in this document. This
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 skipping to change at page 12, 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/