At 10:20 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote:
They are not popular in email. Please remember that IDNA tackles the problem of placing 8-bit data in a 7-bit field, the same as MIME for email.on 9/3/2002 9:27 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > At 08:36 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Eric A. Hall wrote: > >> on 9/3/2002 4:16 PM Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> 10 years, Eric. 10 years. So far. And still counting. >> >> What is this comment supposed to mean exactly? > > It means that talking about such work for MIME does not mean much, > since we still do not have a demonstration that it is particularly > popular yet. Binary transfers aren't popular with HTTP?
The comment is about how long it takes to make change and it is about being careful what we use for making decisions. Making decisions based on a hypothetical future is usually a mistake. Making a decision based on actual practise is always safer and usual makes for better decisions.I still don't understand the "10 years" comment,
You should worry about the fact that after 10 years, it still does not have a particularly major position in Internet mail.either. RFC 1341 defined a Content-Transfer-Encoding type of BINARY in 1992, while RFC 1830 defined a binary transfer mode for SMTP in 1995, while RFC 1945 did the same for HTTP in 1996.
My "issues" are that IDNA is the right technical solution for the particular set of technical and operational constraints it is targeted.Can you state your issues without using this metaphor?