<< Okay, how about the following example? It is a part of the sample data
<< named doc/demo in mule2 (multiligual extenstion to GNU Emacs by
<< Handa-san). If you want more, I can send the other examples.
< Looks like gibberish to me. Somehow I suspect that it also looks like
< gibberish to most of the people who read this.
I would have made the same complaint except for one very important thing:
the message part written in iso-2022-jp-2 was CLEARLY MARKED as being in
that charset. This is no different than receiving a message in iso8859-?
(pick any one that your terminal can't display) and not being able to see
anything but gibberish on my screen.
<<< Wonderful. I am delighted to hear that you have just completed the
<<< worldwide installation of your preferred character set. I trust that
<<< you can now send out a message, similar to mine, that contains several
<<< different languages and can be read even more widely than my MIME
<<< message? I look forward to seeing it. Until you produce it, however,
<<< your claim that "now is then" is about as meaningful as a claim that "up
<<< is down". -- Nathaniel
<< Okay, how about the following example? It is a part of the sample data
<< named doc/demo in mule2 (multiligual extenstion to GNU Emacs by
<< Handa-san). If you want more, I can send the other examples.
Masanobu, there is a big difference between your example and Nat's example:
People receiving the iso-2022-jp-2 message who don't have support for
iso-2022-jp-2 will typically be given the choice of not viewing the
>>entire<< message, or saving it to a file, or potentially seeing random
garbage on their screens.
People receiving the mime message will have the pieces broken apart into
separate sections, and the mime viewer can decide separately for >>each
piece<< whether to display it, save it to a file, or seeing almost
certain garbage on their screens.
That is, the granularity of usefullness is different for the two different
types of messages for those who don't have full support for all character
sets embedded within the two messages.
< So, for the Nth time, to those of you who want to "push" for a single
< character set in Internet e-mail:
<
< You are wasting your time, and ours.
< Your intentions may be noble, but this is the wrong audience.
< If you want to continue with your work, take it elsewhere.
Another way of saying this is: if you want to discuss how to use such a
character set within mail within the internet, this is definitely the place
to do so. However, if you want to discuss a character set itself or how to
get that character set to be used everywhere around the world, such
discussions should go elsewhere.
Tony Hansen
hansen(_at_)pegasus(_dot_)att(_dot_)com,
tony(_at_)attmail(_dot_)com
att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony