The IPP 'mailto:' notification method recommends
suitable content for the human-readable notification,
while gracefully dodging the issues of I18n for
tagging of that content.
How does a user know that the next few characters
are 'job-id' rather than something else?
Are there 'labels' that are translations of the intent
(if not the name) of IPP attributes in the notification?
Is the notification an actually linguistically correct
_whole_sentence_ in the target notification language?
How can we have a standardized email notification
that doesn't address the human usability of the
- Ira McDonald
From: Jay Martin [mailto:jkm at underscore.com]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:51 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'ned.freed at innosoft.com'; ipp at pwg.org
Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM -
TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]
No one ever, *ever* said I18N in mail messages wasn't difficult.
Don't know how you came to that conclusion.
In fact, with the exception of Tom Hastings (big surprise),
there hasn't been a word said on this thread by anyone
else about I18N in email notifications, except for your
comments and the interesting side comment by Ned.
"McDonald, Ira" wrote:
>> Hi Ned,
>> Thanks - you're the only person who has reinforced my
> periodic comments that the I18N for the stuff in the
> 'simple text' email notifications is a nice juicy
> problem - since IPP and most (or all?) shipping IPP
> Printer implementations define support for multiple
> human languages and charsets.
>> And the fact that a client can ask for a notification
> in some other charset than UTF-8 further complicates
> I18N, because the obvious starting point (message
> catalogs in UTF-8) leads to smashed characters in
> many local charsets.
>> I think the IPP 'mailto:' notification method should
> be a good deal more complete on this I18N topic.
> - Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
> High North Inc
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: ned.freed at innosoft.com [mailto:ned.freed at innosoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:21 AM
> To: pmoore at peerless.com> Cc: David_Kellerman at nls.com; kugler at us.ibm.com; ipp at pwg.org> Subject: Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM -
> TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]
>> Frankly, the bigger problem with this stuff is i18n support for the text.
> But that's a different topic.
>> IMO the supposed difference between simple text and a structured report is
> chimera. Email support in general is another matter, of course.