Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

I see.  The reason support for other charset seems to make sense is that I
can see that a lot of times IMA would be used within a same region, say
china MTA to china MTA, which means that by simply using GB would make it
easier in most cases.  It is therefore going to be true that in most cases
using the local encoding will be a much more efficient transport than UTF8.
Because the the IMAX capable MTA should really annouce which encoding it
supports, in real transaction, there wouldn't really be negotiation.
Perhaps I should change it so that if there is no annoucement of additional
charset support then the MUA MUST use UTF8 to start with and avoid having to
negotiate further.  Would that be better?
Edmon


----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <[email protected]>
To: "Edmon Chung" <[email protected]>; "Mark Davis" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:59 AM
Subject: 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.
> > >
>
>