- From: Jungshik Shin <jshin@i18nl10n.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 03:30:01 +0900 (KST)
- To: "A. Vine" <andrea.vine@Sun.COM>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, A. Vine wrote:
> Jungshik Shin wrote:
> > A. Vine wrote:
> >> I'm with Steve.
> >
> >
> > On what? I don't think he took any position.
>
> Explained just after I made that comment, but since you didn't make the
> connection -
> I'm with Steve who said he didn't use RFC 2231. I'm with
It was perfectly clear to me what you're alluding to by that sentence.
See below.
> Steve who used RFC 2047. I agree with Steve's solution, as imperfect as
> it may be.
I knew he had done that, but he tried RFC 2231 first _before_ falling
back to RFC 2047. Besides, he didn't make any comment on the awakardness
of RFC 2231. So, apparently, his position was not (entirely) in line with
yours, which was my point.
> >> RFC 2231 is so awkward and has so little support (it's
> >> been around for many years and yet only now have even a few products
> >> decided to support it)
> >
> >
> > It's not more awkward than RFC 2047 for simple cases.
> For simple cases. But you can't support RFC 2231 for "simple cases"
> only. It is as awkward as RFC 2047 in simple cases but has the extra
> disadvantage that it is different from RFC 2047, and RFC 2047 was
> implemented first.
RFC 2047 cannot be used (at least for emails) not because there's
RFC 2231 but because using RFC 2047 for header field parameters
is in violation of RFC 822/STD 11.
Moreover, what's the role of JSP/servlet, PHP/Perl modules, ASP
(controls?) if it's not to make difficult/awkward things easy for
'end-users' ('end-developers', developers down the stream)? Mozilla does
support it. Pine has no problem dealing with it. Why not brilliant
programmers at Sun and other places who work on those?
Jungshik
Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 13:30:13 UTC