Re: Standards for machine translation in e-mail andnetnews

I suggest that further discussion of this is done in the
"langtrans" mailing list. To subscribe to this list,
send a message containing the text

sub langtrans your name, not your e-mail address

to listserv@su.se

I have written a more complete reply to Martin's message
in that mailing list. For those who have not yet subscribed
to the list, you can read my more complete replies to the
messages from Martin and Keith at:
http://salut.nu/forum/uno/6/1/17/ and
http://salut.nu/forum/uno/6/1/19/
The full archives of the mailing list can be read at
http://salut.nu/forum/uno/6/1/;allmessages


At 12.20 +0900 01-02-14, Martin Duerst wrote:
>I don't understand what multipart/choices is for. There are
>implementation problems for multipart/alternative, but they
>don't get fixed by proposing something new. They can (and
>should) just be fixed asap, which is easier than to implement
>something new.

At 01.04 -0500 01-02-14, Keith Moore wrote:
>I would further argue that "something new" in this space which is
>so similar to multipart/alternative serves merely to increase the
>number of implementation options, and thus, to decrease the
>liklihood of interoperability.
-- 
Jacob Palme <jpalme@dsv.su.se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 06:10:01 UTC