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

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

From: McDonald, Ira (imcdonald@sharplabs.com)
Date: Fri Aug 18 2000 - 22:15:44 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 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@underscore.com]
    Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:51 PM
    To: McDonald, Ira
    Cc: 'ned.freed@innosoft.com'; ipp@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@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 - 22:29:42 EDT