Alexey Melnikov skrev:
[email protected] wrote:
Alexey,
Hi David,
- The recommendation to support MIME header upconversion for
"Other widely deployed MIME charsets" strikes me as
too vague to be useful guidance to implementers.
...
I believe John Klensin has adequately responded to this point.
John has thoroughly demolished the change I suggested, but I
don't think that demolition resolves this concern, as the original
text remains vague.
OTOH, this draft is intended to be an Experimental RFC - would
it be reasonable to say that determining which charsets should
be upconverted is part of the experiment?
I am quite skeptical that we can come to a consensus after running
such experiment. The answer to the question is going to be very
region/country specific.
This is not the first time we are discussing the rathole (the same
applies to MIME, IMAP SEARCH, IMAP CONVERT extension) and this looks
like a big rathole to me.
I think you mentioned earlier that maybe an implementation should
support conversion to UTF-8 of all charsets it already supports in
SEARCH. After thinking more about this I think this proposal is quite
sensible.
It makes quite a lot of sense to me that if an IMAP server supports a
specific charset in some other context (such as IMAP SEARCH and
friends), it should be consistent about supporting the same charset in
UTF8 too.
Inconsistency here would be unreasonable for the user - and by pointing
to that, we have "reduced to a previously unsolved problem".
Suggested language:
If the server supports other charsets in IMAP SEARCH or IMAP CONVERT
(add references to taste), it SHOULD also support those charsets in this
conversion.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
