Subject: Re: [Fwd: interest in the rules language]

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:08:30 -0600

On Fri, 2005/03/25 (MST), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> just checking - should we request to remove the rules language work item  
> from our charter, or are folks out there willing to start NOW.

I will do my best to send another Sieve versus P summary this week. Sorry  
for the delay.

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:17:38 -0600

On Fri, 2005/03/25 (MST), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> there is a "detail" wich was not considered and I focus on: it is the  
> documentation of the language in which the text on wich the rules are to  
> apply. And also in which language the program is to be entered. No use  
> to have a P or Sieve language in ASCII for an Arabic, a Chinese, a  
> Russian, etc. e-mail exchange.

I do not know how Sieve addresses this, but if we go with P, I would argue  
that P should use UTF-8 for encoding. Would using UTF-8 to write rules  
address the above concern?

> A language is documented by a langtag. I was among those who blocked the  
> second last call of the proposed RFC 3066 revamp and obtained a WG-ltru  
> to consider it. One of the major point of contension was the refusal of  
> the authors to consider the OPES requirements. Like Web Services, we  
> need to have a clearly defined language to filter. This concerns both  
> the header (lingual name, subject, etc.) and the content. The author of  
> the Draft (W3C and Unicode) are interested in two main things as far as  
> I understand: documenting the language of the page for HTML and XML and  
> defining the language as part if the UNICODE CLDR effort to define all  
> the locales of all the OSes.

Are you talking about detecting the encoding and/or language of various  
message parts? If yes, then I think the nobel efforts above are outside of  
the rules language core. There should be a mechanism to check what  
encoding/language is used, but how that information is stored in a message  
[part] is pretty much irrelevant to the core of the rules language, right?

Thanks,

Alex.