[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tim Polk's DISCUSS on draft-ietf-imapext-i18n-15.txt
Pete Resnick wrote:
On 3/7/08 at 1:03 PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
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
If we're going to add that, also saying that one MUST NOT advertise
language if you don't support other than i-default is silly.
It is not silly. It is a better server behavior towards clients. I
understand it might be too strong for some implementation. What people
think about saying "servers SHOULD NOT advertise the LANGUAGE extension
If the client must deal with the case of a NO response to the
enumeration request, then it won't have a problem.
And I think Ned's point about not knowing until after CAPABILITIES
time that you don't have more than one language is well taken.
Again, I don't see the big deal about a client dealing with a LANGUAGE
response containing only i-default, but if we really don't like that,
I think the above is a sufficient change.
Sufficient - yes. Ideal - no :-).
I guess I don't care that strongly about the requirements on LANGUAGE