Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: JPALME@qz.qz.se (Jacob Palme QZ)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: Teletex ORName attribute representation
Message-ID: <580365*JPALME@QZ.qz.se>
Date: 4 Jan 91 20:03:09 GMT
Lines: 26
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <9101041733.AA00947@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>
Autoforwarded: true

>> 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.