The legacy encodings are ever evolving and ever *emerging*. That is not the implementation issue , rather protocol/architecture issues, IMO.
Soobok Lee ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Seng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Soobok Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [idn] Re: Legacy charset conversion in draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt (in ksc5601-1987) > If the problem is with the implementation, we fix the implementation, not > the protocol. We have similar arguments before. > > -James Seng > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Soobok Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 1:14 AM > Subject: Re: [idn] Re: Legacy charset conversion in > draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt (in ksc5601-1987) > > > > The big problem lies in that such bad and loose versioning practice is > *everywhere*. > > And precise and correct legacy-code versioning requires that > "code-range&version" checking routines > > should be inserted in every application. And such checking routines > themselves also should be > > versioned because legacy encodings are ever evolving. Both objectives > requires upgrading all existing > > i18n applications, but that may be not feasible, by the same reason why > IDNA is preferred over UTF8 approach > > in this WG. > > > > For example, let's assume future Outlook Express 7.0 will fix the bug by > introducing > > new mime charset name "KS_C_5601-1992" . The sender posts an email message > in KS_C_5601-1992 > > to the recipient who uses Outlook Express 6.0 which knows only > "KS_C_5601-1987". > > What will happen? maybe, fallback to iso8859-1 or default locale. > > direct-charset-negotiation between the sender/recipient's email clients > are not possible. > > > > A XML application server receives a XML request encoded in new > KS_C_5601_1992, but the server applications > > don't know the new charset. what happens if the transaction was in batch > mode? There may be no immediate/interactive error report to > > the orginator. > > > > That explains how much difficult it would be to introduce new version or > new legacy encoding into > > the IDN repertoires of supported encodings , if a certain version of > IDN/IRI would have been widely deployed. > > > > Soobok Lee > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Roozbeh Pournader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > On Wed, 29 May 2002, Soobok Lee wrote: > > > > > > > you can find the errornous mime-charset name : "KS_C_5601-1987". > > > > Stupid and Wrong Versioning! > > > > > > Sure. But no protocol can fix broken software. Nag to developers of the > > > software to fix it. In this case, it is passing a character onto wire, > > > which is not in the character set it is claiming it to be in. > > > > > > If a piece of software wants to work with KSC 5601:1992, and use the > > > character you used, should know its mapping to Unicode. Simple. > > > > > > roozbeh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
