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

[Mark Crispin <MRC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> > * LANGUAGE i-default // I am now using i-default
> > * LANGUAGE (i-default) // I can only do i-default
> A little subtle, don't you think? Demanding of tired brains? I had to look 
> twice...

I agree.  IMAP's architecture may be subtle at times, but not THAT subtle.

> Tim's suggestion to only offer the choice when you're offering more than one 
> alternative makes more sense to me.

Can someone explain to me why the LANGUAGE extension is be offered at all 
if i-default is the only defined extension?  Can't we do an end run by 
stating that an implementation of the LANGUAGE extension MUST allow at 
least one language other than i-default?

I have no sympathy for implementions that want to "support LANGUAGE" as a 
checklist item, yet not actually implement any language.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.