Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545597
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Switching
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Switching"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

but that still makes them non-standard proprietary extensions that Google can change on a whim.


Non-standard, Yes. Proprietary, no.
Google don't "own" these extensions and there are no licenses, restrictions or fees associated with implementing them.
Besides, many things now considered "standard" started out as non-standard.

It's also worth noting that IMAP was designed to be extensible.

Edited 2012-12-18 06:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Switching
by chithanh on Tue 18th Dec 2012 08:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Switching"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

If you equate "public" with "open", then you may be correct.

I however like to think that "open" means that anybody can participate in the process of developing the protocol. This is not the case here, the protocol is decreed by Google.

Secrecy, fees (e.g. due to patent encumbrance) and such are sufficient conditions for being proprietary, but not necessary.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Switching
by Vanders on Tue 18th Dec 2012 10:40 in reply to "RE[4]: Switching"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I however like to think that "open" means that anybody can participate in the process of developing the protocol. This is not the case here, the protocol is decreed by Google.

No it isn't. It's IMAP. Google's extensions are defined by Google, but you're welcome to implement your own version of those extensions, or totally different extensions. You're also welcome to write an RFC based on those extension and submit it to the IETF, at which point they'd become "standard".

Reply Parent Score: 7