Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

I dont agree with the forward looking part.
The big reason as far as I believe that there should be a charset parameter
is because of forward looking.  Today we move from English only to
multilingual... if the design in the first place allowed the charset
parameter, we wouldnt have the problem at all... realizing that, adding the
feature would allow better transition to whatever we might face in terms of
charset in the future.  Your thoughts on this?
Edmon


----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Duerst" <[email protected]>
To: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)


>
> At 09:54 03/02/27 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
>
> >At 11:58 AM -0500 2/27/03, Edmon Chung wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >And much more difficult and prone to errors in the others unless you
> >standardize all of the charset mappings. (Which I assume you aren't
> >proposing to do....)
>
> I agree with Paul that having a large variety of charsets is a big
problem.
> But I don't think the problem of mappings is the main aspect of it.
> The mapping differences usually apply for characters that are not that
> much used in the specific encoding.
> The main problem with using legacy encodings is that it's not at all
> forward-looking. It's introducing more legacy instead of removing
> legacy.
>
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>