Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 549794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: really - what's wrong with *DAV?
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 04:03
in reply to "RE[4]: really - what's wrong with *DAV?"
RE[6]: really - what's wrong with *DAV?
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 04:53
in reply to "RE[5]: really - what's wrong with *DAV?"
I'm unsure, but it is part of my issue with this hatchet they're taking to EAS. Without a suitable solution in place, it is irresponsible to reduce consumer functionality. I wish Google was a little more pragmatic.
EAS is proprietary, from an end-user point of view it results in lock-in to a single supplier, and introduces requirement for the consumer to have to pay royalties. To retain such a standard as the only means of access is to reduce consumer functionality. To get rid of such a lock-in to a proprietary pay-per-access "standard" is by far the best thing to happen, from a consumer perspective.
I put the word "standard" in italics here, in relation to EAS, because a true standard is mean to enable inter-operability of different products. See here for a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_standard
"A software standard is a standard, protocol, or other common format of a document, file, or data transfer accepted and used by one or more software developers while working on one or more than one computer programs. Software standards enable interoperability between different programs created by different developers."
EAS constrains consumers to MS products only. If anything, it is an anti-standard.
This is a self-evident truth. How could you have possibly got it so backwards?
RE[6]: really - what's wrong with *DAV?
by JAlexoid on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 08:00
in reply to "RE[5]: really - what's wrong with *DAV?"
I'm unsure, but it is part of my issue with this hatchet they're taking to EAS. Without a suitable solution in place, it is irresponsible to reduce consumer functionality.
Now please tell me how is the consumer impacted negatively here? (First look up the definition of consumer, vs customer)
Did the deprecation of EAS on free Google services make it impossible to use Outlook.com or other services that provide the same functionality?





Member since:
2010-06-08
It still accomplishes the same goal - removes the burden of the constant polling from the server. Somewhat similar to how BOSH is used for XMPP. Surely full duplex communication is preferable, that's why WebSockets were designed for web servers. Are there any efforts for such communication in e-mail protocols? ActiveSync is irrelevant, since it's not an open protocol. So what else?