On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, John Cowan wrote:
All email addresses will continue to have an ASCII *representation*, which
will not, for most people, have mnemonic value.
Is that a given as one of the requirements? If so, that greatly
constrains the solution set. I happen to think that that is a desirable
constraint; but I have certainly not heard any definite hum of concensus
that this shall be a requirement.
Talk about using alternate forms of "@" (and the like) doesn't sound like
a hum to me.
If so, how many email addresses will a diplomat (or any other individual
engaged in multinational business) need?
That's like asking how many languages should appear on your business card.
As many as the different kinds of people with whom you habitually interact.
That is not a satisfactory answer to the question.
I am engaged in software support. I habitually interact with people from
around the planet. Any proposal, that states that someone like me must
maintain hundreds (if not thousands) of email addresses, is a non-starter.
It is obvious (at least to me) that there is a constraint that prevents
such an outcome. What is that constraint?
No address is quite domestic-only, though it may be a meaningless jumble
to people who are interacting with the ASCII representation.
Again, that assumes a requirement that (as far as I can tell) has not been
made.
If that truly is the requirement, we can have a very short meeting; just
sufficient to say "just use UTF-7" (or any other politically correct
rendering of the day), get the hum, and go home.
Something tells me that isn't going to happen. :-)
-- Mark --
http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.