IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]

IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]

Jay Martin jkm at underscore.com
Fri Aug 18 23:08:45 EDT 2000


Ira,

Since you're the self-declared expert on all things IETF,
what is the current position of the IETF on producing protocols
that don't support I18N?  Does the IETF mandate that all human-readable
elements of protocol data support I18N, or merely frown upon it?

Or do that *not* mandate it at all?  Just curious.

	...jay


"McDonald, Ira" wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay,
> 
> 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
> content?
> 
> Cheers,
> - Ira McDonald
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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)]
> 
> Ira,
> 
> 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.
> 
>         ...jay
> 
> "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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > - 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)]
> >
> > <...snip...>
> >
> > 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
> a
> > chimera. Email support in general is another matter, of course.
> >
> >                                 Ned



More information about the Ipp mailing list