On Mon, 26 Aug 91 03:55:44 -0400, leo j mclaughlin iii wrote:
I believe John, Stef, Ned, (Mark?), and myself are agreed on the following
statement: nested decoding should not be required of RFC-XXXX UAs.
Unless someone violently objects, can everyone out there agree on this
statement pending the November WG meeting?
I violently object.
The objections are:
. to the wording "should not"
. to the limitation to a specific case (nested encodings) and not the general
problem (encodings at anything but the lowest level)
As far as I'm concerned, the statement as written above is worse than useless.
I want more plainly and specifically:
An RFC-XXXX composer MUST NOT apply any encoding to body
parts of type MULTIPART or MESSAGE. An RFC-XXXX reader
MUST ignore any encoding specification on a body part of
type MULTIPART or MESSAGE.
This is more than merely relieving an RFC-XXXX UA of the obligation to support
nested encodings. That would leave things in a de facto state of ambiguity.
This is a *requirement* that RFC-XXXX UA's NOT support high-level (which
includes nested) encodings, so that no RFC-XXXX composer will be written that
generates such obscenities.