Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Tue, 10 January 1995 09:53 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00709; 10 Jan 95 4:53 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00705; 10 Jan 95 4:53 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01747; 10 Jan 95 4:53 EST
Received: from by with SMTP (PP); Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:42:47 +0100
Received: from by with SMTP (PP) id <>; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 10:42:19 +0100
Received: from localhost (hta@localhost) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA03618; Tue, 10 Jan 1995 08:42:37 +0100
Message-Id: <>
X-Authentication-Warning: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
To: "Carl S. Gutekunst" <>
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 09 Jan 1995 15:14:05 MET." <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 08:42:36 +0100

a problem with using the ISO 6937 body part, which I think you are talking
about, is that the spec is simply not available.

Mapping to the ISO 6937 character set rather than the T.61 character set
might be a good idea, IF we can avoid a mandatory requirement for scanning
the whole body of a text/plain; charset=ISO6937 body part in order to find
out whether it can be turned into Teletex or not.

Another problem is that the Teletex body part *allows* character set
switching; perhaps I (shudder!) need to register a new character set
like iso-2022-* to match its properties!

Strange thing about GeneralText: It is in fact mandated by the EWOS
profiles. Its non-support may be indicative of the death of profiling....

                   Harald A