Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?

Ned Freed <> Sat, 07 January 1995 23:02 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03549; 7 Jan 95 18:02 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03545; 7 Jan 95 18:02 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11498; 7 Jan 95 18:02 EST
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM by with SMTP (PP); Sat, 7 Jan 1995 23:50:55 +0100
Received: from INNOSOFT.COM by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V4.3-13 #2001) id <01HLHH8CSJV48ZDW0P@INNOSOFT.COM>; Sat, 07 Jan 1995 14:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 1995 14:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Ned Freed <>
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?
In-reply-to: Your message dated "Fri, 06 Jan 1995 11:10:34 +0100" <>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> I will probably be rewriting RFC 1494 (body part mapping) in the
> near future, either for furthering it along the standards track or
> for aligning with a merged RFC 1327/1495.

> The biggest complaint I had against the previous version was that
> it did not include mapping for Teletex.

Yes indeed. The bottom line is that lots of places use teletex bodyparts, so
you really cannot ignore them.

> Now, I do not love Teletex, but I think we could define an useful
> mapping:

> Teletex -> Text/plain; charset="T.61" (with pagebreaks being
> converted to formfeeds).

This is how I handle it now in my code. (Of course I then provide facilitie
to convert T.61 into various other character sets.)

> Text/plain; charset="T.61" -> GeneralText
> Downgrade from GeneralText to Teletex when going from '88 to '84

This is quite acceptable as well.

> Do you all think this would be an useful extension of the standard?