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

[Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/5/08 at 4:01 PM +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:

> What Pete's saying is that in the case where there is only one 
> language, which MUST be i-default, there is no semantic difference 
> between the server saying "I only use i-default" and "I am using 
> i-default" - whatever happens, the server is now using i-default.

Correct.

> The trouble is that if a client wishes to kick the server into 
> telling it what languages it supports, it instead gets a message 
> back saying that the language has been set - I have a feeling I'd 
> still need to involve semantics at too low a level to be comfortable 
> with.

I assume that the client will keep a list of languages that the 
server supports, and keep track of what language the server is using. 
Let's imagine each of these start as NULL. If the supported languages 
list is NULL, the client is going to request the list. If the current 
language is NULL, the client is going to consult the supported 
languages list, choose one and set it. Either way, the logic for 
handling the LANGUAGE response is:

if(returned languages contains i-default)
    set supported languages to returned languages
if(number of returned languages is 1)
    set currently set language to returned language

> On this basis, I think I'll change my mind again - we don't mandate 
> multiple languages, since the choice to remove additional language 
> support from the implementation can be a deployment-stage decision. 
> Instead, we really do need to change the syntax.

I don't see why.

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