Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Sat, 07 January 1995 21:33 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03240; 7 Jan 95 16:33 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03236; 7 Jan 95 16:33 EST
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10248; 7 Jan 95 16:33 EST
Received: from domen.uninett.no by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP); Sat, 7 Jan 1995 22:23:07 +0100
Received: from trhm2.or.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <04102-0@domen.uninett.no>; Sat, 7 Jan 1995 22:22:41 +0100
Received: from localhost (hta@localhost) by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA00394 for <mime-mhs@surfnet.nl>; Fri, 6 Jan 1995 11:10:36 +0100
Message-Id: <199501061010.LAA00394@dale.uninett.no>
X-Authentication-Warning: dale.uninett.no: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl
Subject: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 1995 11:10:34 +0100
X-Orig-Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no

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

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

                                           Harald A