Re: 'Label' flags

Mark Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Apr 2003 23:02:24 -0400, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> > I've seen 'in the wild' keywords such as $Label1, $Label2 etc Since I'm in
> > the process of adding keyword support and want to have a fixed set of
> > 'labels' that a user can define
>                   ^^^^ client
>
> I think that my correction is important.
>
> If you want "labels" that a user can defined, that's keywords.
>
> What you are asking about is a set of fixed names which has a different
> meaning on a per-client basis.

I agree.

Regarding the original question: I think we should standardize used client
labels, but $Label1/$Label2/... should not be standardized, because they have no
associated meaning.

I've only seen $Label1/... being implemented in Mozilla. Mozilla allows a user
to set on a message one of 5 mutually exclusive labels and a user can modify the
meaning of these labels (i.e. their text description is editable). This is
wrong, as there is no way to share what $Label1 means for different clients, and
it is possible to have unpredictable results as two Mozillas can be configured
differently.

Cheers,
Alexey
__________________________________________
R & D, ACI Worldwide/MessagingDirect
Watford, UK

Work Phone: +44 1923 81 2877
Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel

I speak for myself only, not for my employer.
__________________________________________