Subject: Ftp-WG: comment on I18N draft

From: "Curtin, William" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:14:22 -0400

The only comment that I've received on the I18N draft came from Hunter
Hudson (see below). Does anyone else support the ability of the client to
explicitly turn on UTF encoding? 

						bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Hunter Hudson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 1999 8:08 PM
To: 'Curtin, William'
Subject: RE: New version of I18N draft

How about standardizing a way for the client to explicitly request for the
server to use UTF8 encoding:

Client: feat
Server: 211-Extensions supported:
         UTF8
        211 END
Client: opts utf8 on
Server: 200 UTF8 ON

-Hunter

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtin, William [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 1999 5:00 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: New version of I18N draft
Importance: Low

Attached is the latest version of the I18N draft. My apologies for the time
lapse between the last call comments and getting this out.

 Thing to look for in the draft are:

  1 handling of subtags in LANG command
  2 Should server return something other than 200 if not giving an exact
match for  
    primary/subtag?

  3 Use of HOST or LANG command to tell if new server is talking to an old
client

I'll be out of the office next week. Do we need a new last call or is this
version considered changes based on last call comments from the IESG?

						bill

PS It contains a future date to give the id editor time to post.