Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Paul Robinson writes:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:40:41PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
It's what 822 uses.
And we're having this discussion because we know 822 to be flawed.
Therefore, your point is irrelevant.
I beg to differ.
1. Even if 822's choice of charset were flawed, we still need
interoperation during the (probably very long) transition from 822 to
Mail-NG. It must be possible to write gateways.
If the new default were something like UTF-8, it would be easy as it is
a superset
of ASCII so all existing 822 address are still valid.
The transition back could to 822 format could be as simple as using
the HTTP %<hex> values that we all see in URLs now. A %<hex>
value is just as easy for me to read out loud as a non English name
mugged into ASCII.
MUAs will catch up quickly once adopted.
2. While 822 is flawed in many ways, I don't see what would be gained
by (picking an example at random) using Cyrillic characters in the
message-id production I see on page 23 of RFC 2822. Latin seems just
as good and just as bad as Cyrillic there.
Message-id is not the same as email address. I would agree.
Unicode is a special character repertoire, because it includes all the
characters that are used today. Open a newspaper, any newspaper: The
characters you see are in Unicode, or in the pipeline.
US-ASCII is special because of the need for interoperation/gatewaying
with 822.
Off-hand, I don't see any other special character repertoires.
Arnt
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug(_at_)Royer(_dot_)com | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax: (866)594-8574
| Cell: (208)520-4044
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature