Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

At 18:38 03/02/26 -0500, Edmon Chung wrote:
>So you think its better to mandate some other encoding rather than UTF8?
>Edmon

No, what I mean is that nothing else than UTF-8 should be used,
except for something like punycode for downgrading. So nothing
like Big5, no negotiation on charsets, and so on.

Regards,   Martin.





>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Martin Duerst" <[email protected]>
>To: "Edmon Chung" <[email protected]>; "Mark Davis" <[email protected]>;
><[email protected]>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:59 PM
>Subject: Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)
>
>
> >
> > At 21:20 03/02/25 -0500, Edmon Chung wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Mark,
> > >
> > >I think you are right.  That is why in the IMAX description, UTF8 is
> > >mandated.  The thinking is similar to XML among other things.
> >
> > There is a huge difference between headers (where having
> > a single encoding is very important, because the tagging
> > overhead is high, there are conversion problems,...) and
> > bodies. Parallels to XML work for other body formats, but
> > are really not adequate for headers.
> >
> > Also, XML is already 5 years old. Something new should look
> > ahead, and not try to carry too much unnecessary old stuff.
> >
> >
> > Regards,    Martin.
> >