IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?

Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr> Tue, 10 January 1995 14:20 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02846; 10 Jan 95 9:20 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02842; 10 Jan 95 9:20 EST
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05675; 10 Jan 95 9:20 EST
Received: from mitsou.inria.fr by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP); Tue, 10 Jan 1995 15:09:01 +0100
Received: by mitsou.inria.fr (5.65c8/IDA-1.2.8) id AA16010; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 15:08:41 +0100
Message-Id: <199501101408.AA16010@mitsou.inria.fr>
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Cc: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 10 Jan 1995 08:42:36 +0100." <199501100742.IAA03618@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 15:08:40 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>

Harald,

May I put on the general comment that translations are evil?

The MIME translation of a Teletex body part should be an equivalent
"text/plain; charset=T.61" MIME part, with parameters describing non default
options if any. And do not dare changing one single character in the encoding!

Then, I may be dense, but why would you need something different than a "T.61"
body part for mapping back to 88?

Christian Huitema

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email