khiem@hpindda.cup.hp.COM (Khiem Ho) (12/20/90)
In reviewing the CCITT ORName and ORAddress business card representation document, CCITT seems not addressing two issues: * teletex attributes (eg, Teletex String Organization vs Printable String Org) * Directory Name representation Were these discussed at CCITT/ISO meetings at all and some position taken? There's no statement at all about these on the CCITT report. Khiem
grimm@eiche.darmstadt.gmd.dbp.de (Ruediger Grimm) (12/20/90)
> In reviewing the CCITT ORName and ORAddress business card > representation document . . . . Does this exist ? Please give CCITT number . Greetings --- Ruediger
khiem@hpinddm.cup.hp.COM (Khiem Ho) (12/21/90)
> > > In reviewing the CCITT ORName and ORAddress business card > > representation document . . . . > > Does this exist ? Please give CCITT number . Greetings --- Ruediger > The referred document is Part 10 of the "Report of the Meeting Held in Munich (9 - 13 July 1990)" by the Special Rapporteur for Q18/VII Message Handling Systems. This is the official report as sent by the rapporteur to his distribution list. I don't see a CCITT or ISO number associated with it. Regards, Khiem Ho
JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) (12/22/90)
The general opinion was, I believe, that it is not very important to be able to represent a postal address, teletex addres or fax address on a business card in a X.400-encoded format, since it would be much more natural to present these addresses in the normal non-X.400 way of printing these addresses. In the case of directory names, there may be a need to represent these on a business card, but that would perhaps be a task for another group than the X.400 standardization group. Some people claim that there is no need to have a particular way of representing directory names on business cards, since directory names ought to be so user-friendly, and directory systems so clever, that a normal user can produce a directory query from the normal information on the business card without any requirement of a special format. I am not sure that I believe in this!
Stef@ICS.UCI.EDU (Einar Stefferud) (01/02/91)
hello Jacob -- I am puzzled as to why your messages are being posted
with all of the following addresses in them:
Jerry Sweet <mailmod@ics.uci.edu>,
MHS news mailing list <EANNEWS@qz.qz.se>,
mhsnews@ics.uci.edu
> Subject: Teletex ORName attribute representation
> To: Jerry Sweet <mailmod@ics.uci.edu>,
> MHS news mailing list <EANNEWS@qz.qz.se>, mhsnews@ics.uci.edu
> References: <47920013@hpindda.cup.hp.com>
> Message-Id: <562177*JPALME@QZ.qz.se>
> In-Reply-To: <47920013@hpindda.cup.hp.com>
This results in double delivery to the MHSNEWS list, and also sends a
copy to the list mantenance administrator at mailmod.ics.uci.edu.
I am not sure where you are picking up the mailmod ADDRESS. It will be
helpful if you will stop using it on mail addressed to mhsnews, since it
only increases the burden of administering the mhsnews list at
ics.uci.edu.
I can only assume that "MHS news mailing list <EANNEWS@qz.qz.se>"
address is some kind of local alias at QZ, which should not be
propigated as a global alias, since that will cause even more
duplication of messages as people reply and cannot be sure that it is a
proper additonal address or just an extra leftover local alias (as I am
supposing).
Can you please do something at QZ to resolve this confusing situation.
Thanks...\Stefphilip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.COM (Philip Gladstone) (01/04/91)
>>>>> On 21 Dec 90 17:05:59 GMT, JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) said:
Jacob> The general opinion was, I believe, that it is not very important
Jacob> to be able to represent a postal address, teletex addres or fax
Jacob> address on a business card in a X.400-encoded format, since it
Jacob> would be much more natural to present these addresses in the
Jacob> normal non-X.400 way of printing these addresses.
I had assumed that if the data portion of an attribute contained
non-printablestring characters, then it was to be assumed to be in
T.61. I must confess that I don't really see how this would work
internationally as you are supposed to provide both printable and T.61
forms of each attribute.
How about using the numeric userid. Everybody seems to like addressing
fax machines by a numeric id, so why not UAs :-)
Philip
--
Philip Gladstone Dev Lab Europe, Data General, Cambridge, UK
Listen three eyes, don't you try and outweird me, I get
stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal.pv@eng.sun.COM (Peter Vanderbilt) (01/05/91)
> From: JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) > The general opinion was, I believe, that it is not very important > to be able to represent a postal address, teletex addres or fax > address on a business card in a X.400-encoded format, since it > would be much more natural to present these addresses in the > normal non-X.400 way of printing these addresses. Does this imply that the general opinion was that the teletex form of attributes (like teletex-organization-name or teletex-personal-name) would not be used in regular (F1 V1) X.400 addresses? On the other hand, what is the problem with teletex attributes on a business card? Wouldn't they be printed in the native language form? I agree with with Philip (philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.COM): > I had assumed that if the data portion of an attribute contained > non-printablestring characters, then it was to be assumed to be in > T.61. However, > I must confess that I don't really see how this would work > internationally as you are supposed to provide both printable and T.61 > forms of each attribute. This requirement has been dropped in version 3 of the MHS implementor's guide. Pete
JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) (01/05/91)
>> The general opinion was, I believe, that it is not very important >> to be able to represent a postal address, teletex addres or fax >> address on a business card in a X.400-encoded format, since it >> would be much more natural to present these addresses in the >> normal non-X.400 way of printing these addresses. > >Does this imply that the general opinion was that the teletex form of >attributes (like teletex-organization-name or teletex-personal-name) >would not be used in regular (F1 V1) X.400 addresses? No, sorry, that was not what I meant. The use of the teletex or T.61 character set in attributes is expected to be used, and certainly the form for putting OR-addresses on business cards will be able to handle such attributes. What I was referring to was the X.400 facility for addressing X.400 messages to non-X.400 recipients. For example, an X.400 message can be sent to a postal address, a telex machine or a teletex machine. But it would not be meaningful to put these addresses on a business card in their X.400 format. It would be more natural for those responsible for postal addresses, telex numbers etc. to devise their way of putting such adresses on a business card, since business card recipients may wish to use these addresses for sending information directly from their telex or teletex machines, or by normal postal mail, and not from X.400 nets to these non-X.400 recieving devices.
JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) (01/07/91)
> From: Jerry Sweet <mailmod@ICS.UCI.EDU> > > I had assumed that if the data portion of an attribute contained > non-printablestring characters, then it was to be assumed to be in > T.61. I must confess that I don't really see how this would work > internationally as you are supposed to provide both printable and T.61 > forms of each attribute. A person who has different OR-address for national use (including non-printable string characters) and for international use (with only printable string characters) is expected to either have two different sets of business cards, one for national and one for international use, or else to have the national language version of the business card on one side of the card, and the international version on the other side. Normally, it is not only the OR-address, but also the phone number and the postal address which differs on different sides of the card. For those whose native language uses other character sets than the latin characters, even the character set used will be different on the national and the international side of the card.
pv@eng.sun.COM (Peter Vanderbilt) (01/08/91)
> A person who has different OR-address for national use (including > non-printable string characters) and for international use (with > only printable string characters) is [...] Interesting... Is there a requirement or expectation that a person must have at least one address with only printable string characters? Pete