[NNTP] Internationalisation, attempt 2
chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Wed May 4 03:35:53 PDT 2005
In <m37jiguv8l.fsf at merlin.emma.line.org> Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> writes:
>"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:
>> As such, it was written on the
>> assumption that all communication would be in ASCII and use only a
>> 7-bit transport layer, although in practice all known implementations
>> are 8-bit clean.
>Suggest to replace "all known implementations" by "most known
>implementations" -- unless you can produce proof you've known all at the
>time of writing.
No, the present wording is correct. "all known implementations" means all
implementations known to the collective wisdom of this WG, not all
implementations that might exist. AFAIK, nobody here is aware of _any_
implementation without that property.
>> o Header values SHOULD use US-ASCII or an encoding based on it such
>> as RFC 2047 [RFC2047] until such time as another approach has been
>> standardised. 8-bit encodings (including UTF-8) MAY be used but
>> are likely to cause interoperability problems.
>I don't think this is strong enough. 8-bit encoded Subjects are almost
>guaranteed to cause trouble, I'd think the paragraph should only allow
>UTF-8 and RFC-2047. Suggestion:
>" Header values SHOULD use US-ASCII or an encoding based on it such
> as RFC 2047 [RFC2047] until such time as another approach has been
> standardised. 8-bit encodings other than UTF-8 SHOULD NOT be used,
> because they are likely to cause interoperability problems."
But they don't cause interoperability within NNTP. Whilst it is highly
desirable that non-standard usages within headers should cease, the NNTP
standard is not the place to fix it (we have already had that argument
with Mark Crispin :-( ). NNTP should just pass through non-standard stuff
that does not affect its own operations. Fixing it is someone else's
problem (most likely Usefor's).
>> o The character set of article bodies SHOULD be indicated in the
>> article headers, and this SHOULD be done in accordance with
>Please consider "MUST" for the second "SHOULD". I see no sane solution
>other than MIME at this time, and MIME is the widest spread.
Same again. It is not NNTP's problem. Usefor can and does say what you
>> o Although this specification allows UTF-8 for newsgroup names, they
>> SHOULD be restricted to US-ASCII until a successor to RFC 1036
>> [RFC1036] standardises another approach. 8-bit encodings MAY be
>> used but are likely to cause interoperability problems.
>> o The newsgroup description SHOULD be in US-ASCII or UTF-8 unless
>> and until a successor to RFC 1036 standardised other encoding
>> arrangements. 8-bit encodings other than UTF-8 MAY be used but are
>> likely to cause interoperability problems.
>Again, these paragraphs ought to read "8-bit encodings other than UTF-8
>SHOULD NOT be used, because they are ...(interoperability)..."
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ietf-nntp