Re: [idn] Re: Legacy charset conversion in draft-ietf-idn-idna-08.txt (in ksc5601-1987)

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

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" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
To: "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
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" <lsb@postel.co.kr>
> To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
> 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" <roozbeh@sharif.edu>
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>