Re: Tim Polk's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-15.txt

[Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon Mar  3 21:26:11 2008, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Tim Polk have noticed the following issue with the COMPARATOR  
> response:
>
> > The LANGUAGE response is ambiguous for the corner case where the  
> > LANGUAGE
> > extension
> > is supported but only the i-default langauge is supported.
> > Specifically, Section 3.3 states:
> >
> >    A LANGUAGE response with a list containing a single language tag
> >    indicates that the server is now using that language.  A  
> > LANGUAGE
> >    response with a list containing multiple language tags  
> > indicates the
> >    server is communicating a list of available languages to the  
> > client,
> >    and no change in the active language has been made.
> >
> > However, for the corner case the server's list of langauges is  
> > just i-default.
> >
> > Adding a requirements that "IMAP servers that support this  
> > extension MUST
> > support at least one langauge in addition to i-default" would  
> > correct this by
> > avoiding the corner case.   (Just an observation, I'm not set on  
> > any particular
> > solution.)
> So we can follow's Tim suggestion. Alternatively we can have 2  
> separate responses to distinguish 2 cases. Which alternative is  
> preferred by the WG?

I like the idea of sticking the available languages in parentheses.  
It's the simplest change I can think of.

So you'd get:

* LANGUAGE i-default // I am now using i-default
* LANGUAGE (i-default) // I can only do i-default

Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxx
 - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
 - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade