Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)

Just because a charset is registered does not mean it is always interpreted
the same way: in fact, quite the contrary. See
http://oss.software.ibm.com/icu/charset/index.html for examples.

Mark
________
[email protected]
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmon Chung" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:42
Subject: Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)


>
> I see.  But why would someone convert to charset A to charset B?  Except
for
> from (or to) a particular local encoding to UTF8.  Since charsets
registered
> should be able to convert between ISO10646, there shouldnt be any problem.
> Edmon
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[email protected]>
> To: "Edmon Chung" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Problems of Internationalized Mail Address eXtensions (IMAX)
>
>
> > At 1:30 PM -0500 2/27/03, Edmon Chung wrote:
> > >I am not sure what you mean.
> > >The document did refer to using the charsets registered at IANA for
MIME.
> > >Are the charsets registered there not a good set to work with?
> >
> > If you expect someone to convert from charset A to charset B
> > reliably, you have to standardize the mapping table. There are lots
> > of examples of mapping tables in use today that differ. Without that,
> > someone sending with one charset and expecting the mail to be put in
> > exactly the mailbox they mean might be in for a bad surprise.
> >
> > This was discussed on the IDN mailing list.
> >
> > --Paul Hoffman, Director
> > --Internet Mail Consortium
> >
>
>