I am enthuistic about the real-headers for extended character
set support in message headers. I have seen no objections to the
scheme, and it appears to be workable. Please include it in the next
draft of the RFCXXXX. BTW, when can we expect a new version?
% Not true. I object to it. The basis for my objection is simple: I think
% using mnemonic in the original headers is simpler, more consistent, and
% leads to something that is a lot more usable on an unextended UA.
[ stuff deleted here for brevity ]
% In contrast, I have seen no cogent objections to mnemonic posted to the
% list. Maybe I missed them.
Mnemonic is NOT a general solution. It only handles alphabetic
languages and leaves the ideogrammatic languages out in the cold.
That limitation of mnemonic probably cannot be helped, but the use of
Real-* headers is the more general solution, is not Euro-centric, and
works world-wide. Let's try to think globally here and solve the
general problem for all users.
Let's drop the idea of mnemonic as the header solution and get on with
the Real-* proposal.
Ran
atkinson(_at_)itd(_dot_)nrl(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil