IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeti

IPP Mail Archive: RE: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeti

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

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Fri Aug 18 2000 - 21:25:42 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Martin: "Re: IPP>NOT mailto feature from IETF meeting (RE: IPP> ADM - TheIPPNotification I-Ds will now go the IESG)]"

    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@innosoft.com [mailto:ned.freed@innosoft.com]
    Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:21 AM
    To: pmoore@peerless.com
    Cc: David_Kellerman@nls.com; kugler@us.ibm.com; ipp@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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 21:34:51 EDT