> --On Saturday, May 16, 2009 07:23 -0700 Ned Freed
> <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new
> >> bullet in 6.3 says
> >
> >> > o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of
> >> > true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability
> >> > to internationalization.
> >
> >> It is not obvious at all.
> >
> > Excuse me? If it isn't obvious that a potential use of
> > multimedia formats is for internationalization, I don't know
> > what is. The ability to send audio, video, formats with
> > mulltiple tracks, etc. etc. all have _obvious_ applications to
> > internationalization.
> Unless one proposes to say that the availability of such media
> and that fact that they can be used to transmit non-English
> materials is an application to internationalization, I don't
> think the link is obvious. And, if one does say that, I
> suggest it is almost equivalent to saying that one doesn't
> really need non-ASCII character set encoding if image data
> (etc.) can be used to transmit images of the relevant other text.
> If the document is trying to say what I infer from the above
> that you believe it means, I suggest avoiding assertions about
> obviousness (which are, I believe, a matter of perspective and
> opinion) and say instead something like:
> o MIME [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allows for the transport
> of true multimedia material. Such material enables
> internationalization because it is not restricted to any
> particular language or locale.
That seems like reasonable text to me and I fully support using it
instead of what's there now.
> ...
> > Er, not exactly. The inability of our current address format
> > to handle internationalized characters is what creates
> > internationalization issues, not the POP or IMAP protocols.
> > The EAI work has seen fit to address this by changing the
> > message format in a way that then requires changes and
> > additions to all sorts of stuff, including but not limited to
> > POP and IMAP. But POP and IMAP did not introduce this issue,
> > RFC 822 et al. did.
> That is correct ("obviously" so). As with the above, I think we
> are being a little too terse here because, while the sentence is
> strictly true as written, I believe that a casual reader might
> infer that it implies that no changes to POP or IMAP are needed
> for internationalization. Even that inference is true until
> one starts to put internationalized characters in addresses.
> > I therefore believe this statement is true, although perhaps
> > given the lack of any viable alternativce to the EAI approach
> > it could be considered to be a vacuous truth. Perhaps
> > rewording this to say something along the lines of:
> >
> > "POP and IMAP have no difficulties with handling MIME
> > messages, including ones containing 8bit, and therefore are
> > not a source of of internationalization issues."
> I typed out a different formulation, but this one works for me.
Good enough then.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf