Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: philip@beeblebrox.dle.dg.COM (Philip Gladstone) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Teletex ORName attribute representation Message-ID: Date: 4 Jan 91 05:41:18 GMT References: <562177*JPALME@QZ.qz.se> Organization: Data General, Development Lab Europe Lines: 25 Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU In-Reply-To: JPALME@qz.qz.se's message of 21 Dec 90 17:05:59 GMT x-attn: jns ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU >>>>> 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.