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

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@xxxxxxxx>]

Alexey Melnikov writes:
> > 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?

Tim's suggestion. What he's found is that LANGUAGE without languages has 
syntactic problems. I think it's likely that there are other problems 
too, which his suggestion avoids at low or no cost.

Arnt