A lot of it is due to the limitations of HTML. For example, HTML is why Gmail paginates about as well as PHP app from 1998, instead of allowing you to just scroll through all of them like a native client.
Nonsense. FastMail's webmail allows you to scroll continuously through (or jump to any section of) your mailbox, even when they have 100,000+ messages in them. (Disclaimer: I work for FastMail). This is not an inherent limitation of the underlying technology, just one of implementation.
> For example, HTML is why Gmail paginates about as well as PHP app from 1998, instead of allowing you to just scroll through all of them like a native client.
No, its not. HTML + JS, via AJAX, supports infinite scroll with a finite amount loaded at any given time. IIRC, Google has used that on Google Image Search and some other properties.
There may be web platform associated performance or other considerations behind pagination, but its not a fundamental can't-do limit of the technology.
Pagination does have it's advantages, namely:
- Linking
- Easier to grok where you are in the result set ( 3 out of 5 instead of the scroll bar that changes height)
That could definitely be part of it. Outlook isn't dumbed down because it's not primarily aimed at home users. Maybe Gmail makes sense for few people in the office the way Outlook makes sense for few people at home. That doesn't change the fact that the bandwidth/latency profiles are different going to the server room in the building than going out to the internet. But I might see a big improvement over what Gmail is now if Google was being designed for business users.
For starters Google could of kept compatibility with the activesync protocol instead of making calender sync with outlook the horrific monster it is today. Actions like this are just one of the multiple reasons I tell people to not invest invest Google business products.
Because I could then build the entire interface client-side in a browser?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a webdev guy. I have no front end/fullstack experience. I'm a longterm sysadmin/DevOps person. But if you're a power user, you want control over your mail interface/workflow. In that case, all your mailserver should be doing is accepting email for you, storing and indexing it, and serving it via API to clients you're using. I like IMAP, but it doesn't easily support some Gmail conventions (multiple labels per message).
IMAP and SMTP could easily be condensed into an XML/JSON API that could be done over HTTPS; I'm not familiar enough with CalDAV to say that though.
I believe ops point was that any stable api would be preferable to: "Yeah, there's an api, but we refuse to document it, and we'll randomly depricate stuff if you try to use it to build something that isn't gmail". The team behind gmail is probably one of the best qualified to hammer out a working api for email of json (what we have + a bit of what we want + stability and versioning). No reason why they couldn't publish that as an RFC and let people implement a front end for dbmail or whatnot that spoke the same api.
