Internet Message Access Protocol Internationalization
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
(Lisa Dusseault) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
> Clients are urged to > issue LANGUAGE before authentication, since some servers send > valuable user information as part of authentication (e.g. "password > is correct, but expired"). Clients SHOULD issue?
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection
The LANGUAGE response is ambiguous for the corner case where the LANGUAGE extension is supported but only the i-default langauge is supported. Specifically, Section 3.3 states: A LANGUAGE response with a list containing a single language tag indicates that the server is now using that language. A LANGUAGE response with a list containing multiple language tags indicates the server is communicating a list of available languages to the client, and no change in the active language has been made. However, for the corner case the server's list of langauges is just i-default. Adding a requirements that "IMAP servers that support this extension MUST support at least one langauge in addition to i-default" would correct this by avoiding the corner case. (Just an observation, I'm not set on any particular solution.) Is I18NLEVEL=1 defined in another specification? The introductory text (Section2, final paragraph) implies that only I18NLEVEL=2 is specified here, but section 4 includes definitions for I18NLEVEL= 1 and 2.