[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


On 3/4/08 at 9:41 AM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:


Tim Polk have noticed the following issue with the COMPARATOR response:


    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.


Maybe I'm not reading the draft properly, but I'm not convinced this corner
case exists. There are two cases: A LANGUAGE command with an argument and a
LANGUAGE command without an arugment. The former always gets a response
consisting of the single language that was selected (or an error) while the
latter always gets a response specifying what languages are available.

In particular, I don't see a way for the LANGUAGE command with an argument
to return the available language list.
No, I think Tim's concern is different, but I still think there is nothing (besides perhaps a little wordsmithing) that needs to be done: Tim's concern is that if you get back a LANGUAGE response with only 1 language tag, you don't know (without saving some context about what command you issued) whether that means the server is sending back its list of available languages (which only contains 1 item) or is telling you that it is now using the language it just sent back. But I think this is a distinction without a difference: If the server only supports i-default, it is *always* using i-default and will *always* return a single language tag (of i-default). 

I'm open for additional text at the end of the paragraph to clarify.

pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated