From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:00:40 -0700 Subject: [sup-talk] rethinking sup part ii In-Reply-To: <1216891009-sup-9628@ausone.inria.fr> References: <1216589569-sup-1520@entry> <18084-90829@sneakemail.com> <1216891009-sup-9628@ausone.inria.fr> Message-ID: <1217001070-sup-9401@entry> 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