From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar-usefor@algonet.se)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 09:13:45 CST
Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Issue 1, alternative #0 (the present draft):
> --------------------------------------------
>
> a) UTF-8 is allowed in headers.
> b) RFC 2047/2231 is also allowed and is required for the mailed
> component of posted-and-mailed.
> c) Newsgroup-names are encoded (5.2.2) when posted-and-mailed or sent to
> moderators, but are raw UTF-8 on the wire.
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #1:
> ------------------------
> a-c) As #0
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #2:
> ------------------------
> a-d) As #0
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #3:
> ------------------------
> a-d) As #0
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #4:
> ------------------------
>
> Define only how to transform a newsgroup name into a moderator's
> email address alias. Specify sending UTF-8-xtra-char in email
> headers. Even though this would not be compliant with current email
> standards, just hope that the IETF will still accept this draft.
>...
> Issue 1, alternative #5:
> ------------------------
>
> a) Remove all references to the use of raw UTF-8 in headers from the
> document.
There is an opposition where between #5 and the rest. And if the list -
God forbid - would settle on #5, there are a number of choices:
- Punycode.
- u_+RFC2231.
- charset not necessarily Unicode (Bruce Lilly's stance)
- no support at all for non-ASCII chars in newsgroup names
In the same way, #1-4 are alternatives that all have UTF-8. If a vote
results in 8 for #1, 9 for #2, 9 for #3, 2 for #4 and 10 for #5, the
non-UTF-8 alternative has the most votes, but is still in clear
minority.
Of course I can envision that there are people who could support, say,
#2, but never #1 in such case would go for a #5 solution. Then again,
someone might be prepared to accept 2231, but totally oppose Unicode.
There appears to be two paths take:
1) Have a list with many alternative, with #5 split in several, and you
may say "Prefer", "Neutral", or "Oppose" to each.
2) Put #1 (with possible adjustments) against #5 and then take new votes
based on the outcome.
The second alternative appears to be the simplest.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se