From: wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net (William Morgan)
Subject: [sup-talk] rethinking sup part ii
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:00:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1217001070-sup-9401@entry> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1216891009-sup-9628@ausone.inria.fr>
Reformatted excerpts from nicolas.pouillard's message of 2008-07-24:
> Here is another big design decision, note that some labels are truly
> message based:
>
> * unread: of course
> * spam: to be sure that a spam message a response to a ham message
> don't throw away the whole thread.
> * starred: sometime it's there to highlight a message and sometimes
> to select the whole thread.
What's interesting about the labels you've listed is that they all have
special semantics, i.e. the server or the client does something special
based on whether they're present.
Do people have "user" labels that they use to distinguish individual
messages, as opposed to individual threads?
If not, we could have labels only on threads by having a bunch of
boolean flags on messages: read/unread, spam/ham, starred/regular,
draft/not-draft, etc. The search syntax would probably change for those
features.
> Since there is mandatory requirements for message based labels
> and thread based labels, one can provide both. Perhaps a syntactic
> distinction would be sufficient:
> * a case distinction: INBOX vs unread
> * a special mark: inbox* vs unread (here the star means the
> repetition on all messages of the thread).
Having both would be possible too, but it seems overly complicated to
me. I think that's my least favorite option right now.
This is a good discussion though. I haven't really thought this all
through.
--
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-25 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-20 21:33 William Morgan
2008-07-20 23:28 ` Guillaume Quintard
2008-07-21 0:04 ` William Morgan
2008-07-21 5:43 ` Guillaume Quintard
2008-07-21 12:14 ` Peter Krenn
2008-07-21 15:22 ` William Morgan
2008-07-21 15:26 ` Stephen Patterson
2008-07-21 16:04 ` John Bent
2008-07-22 2:12 ` William Morgan
2008-07-23 17:40 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2008-07-23 22:26 ` William Morgan
2008-07-24 9:16 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2008-07-21 18:43 ` Lionel Ott
2008-07-23 8:45 ` Richard Heycock
2008-07-23 8:58 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2008-07-23 9:27 ` teroz
2008-07-23 21:41 ` Richard Heycock
2008-07-23 17:09 ` William Morgan
2008-07-25 12:11 ` Marcus Williams
2008-07-24 4:55 ` Guarded Identity
2008-07-24 9:21 ` Nicolas Pouillard
2008-07-25 16:00 ` William Morgan [this message]
2008-07-26 7:32 ` Guarded Identity
2008-07-25 7:18 ` William Morgan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1217001070-sup-9401@entry \
--to=wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox