[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Character-set header (was Re: Minutes of the Atlanta 822ext meeting)

1991-08-29 12:08:14
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1991 14:50:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)thumper(_dot_)bellcore(_dot_)com>

Excerpts from mail: 29-Aug-91 Re: Character-set header (w.. Keith
Moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu (3395)

So the fact that a character-set header exists for a body part doesn't mean
anything unless the specification for its particular content-type defines
the meaning of a character-set header.  If a body part header is included
that isn't defined in the specification for that content-type, it should be

Yes, I'm not arguing that you can't *invent* an algorithm for
interpreting a Character-set header, but merely that in any such
algorithm, there will be many cases in which the answer is "ignore the
character-set header."  This smacks of bad design.  

Are you actually arguing against ever having optional, named parameters
for a content-type?

If we allow optional parameters at all then we either have to
(a) determine in advance what every possible parameter will be
for every content type that we define, and explicitly disallow
the rest, or (b) specify what should happen when we get a body 
part with an undefined optional parameter.