-- Recognize other character sets at
least to the extent of being able
to inform the user about what
character set the message uses.
-- For unrecognized subtypes, show or
offer to show the user the "raw"
version of the data.
Perhaps the first paragraph above could be changed a little to say
that the text must be shown to the user in "raw" form (as in the
second paragraph). Would this satisfy you?
Well, that could be a way to do it. But is this
satisfactory for other character sets?
3. products following the spec has been in production use for more
than 2 years (iso-2022-jp has this quality too).
4. It is the only spec that preserves interoperability of internet mail,
in fact MIME destroys internet interoperability.
5. It is adopted by a large internet community (EUnet) as its standard.
(iso-2022-jp also has this quality).
You are giving the JUNET encoding a very bad name by comparing it with
"mnemonic". The JUNET encoding actually works. It is used in large
volumes, day by day, among many people, in Japan.
well, mnemonic actually also works. It may not be used by as many
people in Europe as the JUNET encoding in Japan, but I can assure you
that a large volumes of mail is handled by mnemonic - good to
know that people communicate all over the world...
The "mnemonic" encoding, on the other hand, has been installed at a
few EUnet sites for 2 years, but apparently there are people that
don't use it, and there are interoperability problems in certain parts
of EUnet. Why, just the other day, yesterday I believe, there was a
fellow from Denmark complaining that the lack of interoperability was
adversely affecting their culture. Wait, hold on! Your email address
is the same as his: keld(_at_)dkuug(_dot_)dk(_dot_) Are you two the same
person?
:-) The interoperability problems are not with mnemonic, but
especially with 8-bit non-mime mail, and in the
forseable future, also with quoted-printable and base64 encoded mail.
Keld
Cheers,
Erik