From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 08:51:50 CST
On 7 Jan 2002, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> >>>>> "Claus" == Claus Färber <list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de> writes:
>
> Claus> It depends how you define the scheme. But yes, for reasonably
> Claus> effiecient schemes, it would be completly unreadable;
> Claus> something like se.test.+sdvjn23eor, WHICH IS STILL BETTER THAN
> Claus> SEEING A NAME LIKE se.test.r||ksm||rg||s AND NOT BEING ABLE TO
> Claus> USE THE GROUP.
>
> If you see a group name se.test.+sdvjn23eor, how do you know whether
> it is an encoding of a name with 8-bit characters or just a group that
> happens to have a name component starting with '+'?
>
> What do you do about those systems that currently refuse to
> auto-create groups with such names?
Until software is updated to understand encoding, I would guess that ANY
encoding scheme will break somewhere. I don't see that a a huge major
problem, because we can't avoid it.
That said, an encoding which is at least capable of display on ASCII
output devices will cause fewer problems. Note that "hard to read
gibberish" is not the same as "can't read or type it at all."
Take that as agreement with Claus' point above.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me