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

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ned Freed wrote:

> > Ned Freed wrote:
[...]

> > Ok, so you are talking about misconfiguration case, while I was thinking
> > about implementing LANGUAGE without implementing any languages case.
>
> I realize with all the attention i18n gets in the IETF it's likely to be
> considered an aberrant attitude, but there are plenty of cases where 
> people
> don't want any i18n support on their systems. So I wouldn't call it
> misconfiguration per se.

Sure. See my text below.

> > I think it is worth adding some text to describe correct behaviour for
> > your case.
>
> IMO that's an acceptable way to handle it.

I've suggested addition of the following text:
  If the server discovers that it doesn't support any language other
  than i-default, it MUST return a tagged NO response to the
  enumeration request.

At the end of the following paragraph:
  If there aren't any arguments, the server SHOULD send an untagged
  LANGUAGE response listing the languages it supports.  If the server
  is unable to enumerate the list of languages it supports it MAY
  return a tagged NO response to the enumeration request.


I can also suggest some additional text saying that the LANGUAGE 
extension shouldn't be advertised if no language other than i-default is 
available.

> Of course one way to deal with it
> would be to hard code one additionaal language code other than 
> i-default for
> whatever the built in language support is.

Indeed.