[NNTP] Internationalisation
Russ Allbery
rra at stanford.edu
Wed May 18 19:06:36 PDT 2005
Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery said:
>> I wouldn't mention UTF-8 here. There's very little use of UTF-8 in
>> practice on Usenet, and what little there is is in bodies and is tagged
>> via MIME and therefore already covered by the MIME reference.
> This paragraph is intended to cover both headers and body. MIME doesn't
> imply UTF-8, and I wanted some mention of the latter in this survey of
> the current situation.
After further thought, I think the current text is good enough and it's
not worth making a change here.
>> > 10.2 This specification
>>
>> > Part of the role of this present specification is to eliminate this
>> > confusion and promote interoperability as far as possible. At the
>> > same time, it is necessary to accept the existence of the present
>> > situation and not gratuitously break existing implementations and
>> > arrangements, even if they are less than optimal. Therefore current
>> > practice has been taken into consideration while in producing this
>> > specification.
> Are you suggesting dropping this paragraph? It expresses the principles
> used in making the decisions we have made. I think something like it
> belongs here, though it could go at the end of 10.1.
No, that was unintentional; I think that paragraph is fine.
> Well, when we first looked at this issue (a couple of years ago, I
> think) we decided not to make a decision. But I have no problem with
> changing this (and, given the new stronger stance on I18N, it's probably
> the right thing to do). It involves some consequential changes outside
> 10.2 (e.g. in the syntax).
It looks like this change was made? I think it's the right thing to do.
--
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list