Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: O/R-address format on business cards
Message-ID: <14043@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 22 Aug 90 07:18:51 GMT
References: <412518*JPALME@QZ.qz.se>
Organization: York U. Computing Services
Lines: 33
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
x-attn: jns
X-Previously-To: comp-protocols-iso-x400%mnetor@uunet.UU.NET
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU


JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ) writes:
[in a discussion of the OR-format address]
quoth someone:
>	>>For what it's worth, my $0.02 on X.400 addressing:  From what I
>	>>percieve as being proposed as required address formats for input
>	>>by humans to send mail to other humans it is *completely
>	>>ridiculous*.  For use by computers, fine.  Humans???

jpalme saith:
>That the OR-address format in X.400 is very difficult for non-experts to
>use is wellknown. I am however not sure if the comment above is

>(a) A comment on whether the X.400 OR-address format is human-friendly
>    or not.
>(b) A comment on whether the proposed business card format for writing
>    OR-addresses, given their present definition, is human-friendly
>    or not.

 or (c), the linearized form for use by non-programmatic mail users.

  The discussion of a business-card form is, IMHO, at best a matter of
typography and at worst a red herring.  Indeed, as is the OR-address in
any strictly human context.

  Can we return to discussing the MUA, please?

--dave
--
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA, ...!yunexus!davecb or
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | {toronto area...}lethe!dave
Willowdale, Ontario,  | "And the next 8 man-months came up like
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |   thunder across the bay" --david kipling