Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!uwm.edu!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!com.qz.se!JPALME
From: JPALME@com.qz.se
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: concise format
Message-ID: <456547@QZCOM>
Date: 19 Oct 89 11:20:00 GMT
References: <1354*eppenberger@verw.switch.ch>
Sender: root@ncis.tis.llnl.gov
Reply-To: Jacob Palme QZ <JPALME@com.qz.se>
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 67
Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov

>X-Originator: Jacob Palme QZ <JPALME@com.qz.se>

> From: Urs Eppenberger <eppenberger@verw.switch.ch>
>
> You can't discuss a format for the representation of O/R-addresses
> without following, what the software developpers are selling NOW.
>
> Most user interfaces are menu or window oriented. To enter an address
> the naive user is prompted like the following example:
>
> Country                :
> Administration Domain  :
> Private Domain         :
> Company                :
> Subdivision            :
> Surname                :
> Givenname              :
>
> The main criteria for a useful representation of an O/R address is now:
>
>  IS THE NAIV USER ABLE TO FILL IN THE ABOVE FORM WITH THE INFORMATION
>  GIVEN ON THE BUSINESS CARD ?
>
> Here are the two examples from Jacob Palme:
     
Concise RARE format:
     
 C=GB;ADMD=Gold 400;O=Nottingham University;S=Smith;G=Hugh
     
Concise format:
     
 /Hugh/Smith//Nottingham University//Gold 400/GB
     
It is obvious, that with a user interface which uses the form-fill-in
method, the Concise RARE format is better (but not ideal). The
Concise format requires in practice that all user interfaces are
able to input OR-names in that format. (That format need not be
the normal or only way of inputting addresses, but one possible
way of inputting them.)
     
I do not agree with you that this argument is the only argument
in choosing the best concise format. There are other arguments
for other alternatives.
     
By far the most important argument, in my opinion, is the risk
that X.400 will never become accepted, will become a dead horse,
like Teletex, because of the complicated OR-name structure.
     
Compare to telephone numbers, which have been successful for
both telephone and fax.
     
The reason many manufacturers today have implemented a form-
fill-in interface is that this is the only reasonable solution
when no standard for a concise format exists. Your arguments
are a kind of catch 22 or "which was first, the hen or the
egg".
     
If there is no standard for or-name priting, we must use
form-fill-in format in user interfaces.
     
If we use form-fill-in format in user interfaces, and nothing
more, then no user-friendly user interface can be defined.
     
Conclusion: We cannot escape from this deadly loop by some
kind of bootstrapping.