Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?
Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Wed, 11 January 1995 08:31 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23393; 11 Jan 95 3:31 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23389; 11 Jan 95 3:31 EST
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29502; 11 Jan 95 3:31 EST
Received: from domen.uninett.no by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP); Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:21:13 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <21905-0@domen.uninett.no>; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:21:03 +0100
Received: from localhost (hta@localhost) by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA05926; Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:21:00 +0100
Message-Id: <199501110821.JAA05926@dale.uninett.no>
X-Authentication-Warning: dale.uninett.no: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.5.2 12/21/94
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>
cc: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl
Subject: Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping?
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Jan 1995 15:08:40 MET." <199501101408.AA16010@mitsou.inria.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:20:59 +0100
X-Orig-Sender: hta@dale.uninett.no
Christian, I heartily agree that translations are evil; the only thing more evil is lack of communication :-) The problem with Teletex (and one reason why I don't like it) is that it is NOT text/plain, but a sequence of OCTET STRINGS representing pages, with non-text announcers telling us what kind of paper it expects to be printed on and so on, which means that we *have* to get into the business of changing the encoding no matter what we do. Teletex was designed for a negotiated interchange medium, and has been shoehorned into the message transfer world without losing any of its troublesome aspects, just like G3Fax. The reason I suggested GeneralText for the reverse mapping is that I do NOT enjoy the scenario where one has to generate 3 different body part types from a single MIME type; having IA5text and GeneralText both is unavoidable, but I don't want to encourage the adoption of Teletex in X.400/88 more than I have to. (European functional profiles for X.400/84 require Teletex for ADMDs and the non-standard "ISO 6937" body part for PRMDs; the fact that the two profiles weren't able to agree on a single recommendation for extended characters is one reason why I don't have much respect for that process. I HOPE to be able to continue ignoring the "ISO6937" body part, but several people who sell software have told me that Teletex is "THE standard" for sending national characters in X.400/84) Harald A
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Christian Huitema
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Julian Onions
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Ned Freed
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Carl S. Gutekunst
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Ned Freed
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Christian Huitema
- Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: Revision of RFC 1494 - Teletex mapping? Ned Freed