I also have to agree that this topic belongs on the table.
I know of several international mailing lists where people have to
resort to horrible kludges such as "Alain LaBonte/". This guy has to
be aware of the ASCII email world, and has to type "e/" for e-acute.
These people are really frustrated with today's minimal support for
other character sets. One of the main reasons for forming ietf-smtp
and ietf-822 is to discuss extensions for these people, I think. How
do others feel about this?
Regards, Erik
But, I am not sure about the ONE RFC-XXXX vs a BASE RFC-XXXX and a
plan for its specified CONTENT-TYPES and CHARACTER-SET and OTHER
STUFF.
I tend to lean toward the BASE RFC-XXXX if we can structure the plan
for the next pieces, and maybe even include the plan in RFC-XXXX!
I can certainly see that some of this stuff is going to take a long
time to fully iron out, and I don't want to wait that long for the
BASE stuff to be set forth for implementation.
However, I think we need to have the kind of discussion we are having
about the details, else we will set the BASE in place without having
explored how well designed it i, and whether it reall will accommodate
and encourage what we want, vice locking things up in a prison like
X.400(84) has done.
So, I don't mind the discussion, but it would be nice to settle on the
ONE RFC vs BASE RFC +OTHER RFCs concept. Has anyone got an outline of
how the structured set of RFCs would look and how the process of
building the structured set would progress?