Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: mark@cbmark.cbcc.att.COM (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Printable format (was: Re: ISO/CCITT meeting report)
Message-ID: <9008141515.AA02452@cbmark.cbcc.att.com>
Date: 14 Aug 90 16:16:50 GMT
Lines: 33
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU

The original message said that a human factors study had been done, testing
typing of these email addresses, how easy they are to type and how error-free
the process is.  It bemoaned that the ;= format is not directly usable by
one-line computer user interfaces, but indicated that the committee was
recommending it anyway because, even though it's not useful for typing
into computers, it's at least not error-prone.

Someone else then said that the whole purpose of this standard is to
standardize printed business cards and that user interfaces aren't relevant.

This is all silly.  There are already de facto gateways being put into place,
and the ones I've seen all use the /= syntax.   Perhaps there is one using
the ;= syntax somewhere, but I'll wager that people trying to use UUCP to
reach such a gateway aren't able to get the semicolons through!

A user interface standard that can't be implemented on 90% of the computers
that it applies to is not going to have much influence on practice.  A
standard that is only useful for business cards produced by a body that
standardizes computer interfaces isn't going to have much impact, either.

As Jon Postel points out, if you're going to write your email address on
a business card, let's write the email address the way it's going to be
typed by the users.  We have a golden opportunity to standardize the one-line
entry format here, and if we pick a standard that can be implemented on the
most popular systems, such as UNIX and MS DOS, and leverage off existing
conventions and tools, such as the shell and UUCP, we can really help the
users get their email sent without undue confusion.

And by the way, let's standardize the spelling of the attribute names.
The de facto gateways can't seem to agree on spelling, so we have to
contend with A, AD, and ADMD for the same thing, for example.

	Mark