Simple: Today there is no character limitations for the subject
line. Tomorrow there will be (with RFC-XXXX).
Wrong. 8 bit characters are presently illegal on the Subject: line, or any
other header. See RFC822. It may work now, but only because your software does
not enforce existing standards. Software does exist that enforces standards,
and your mail does not interoperate with it.
The users will naturally want to continue to use our special
characters, as they allways have. But suddently -- as those characters
now will be 8-bit -- we have to stop them from doing that on the
subject line. This is a severe decrease in functionality.
RFC-XXXX changes nothing in this regard. It simply restates what is presently
stated in RFC822, and explicitly specifies the character set that was not
completely specified in RFC822.
Well, we could change all the UAs to make nasty conversions of what
the user types in as subject (into the 7-bit codes used before), but
then it will look awful for the receiver.
Again, this is not a change.
The move to an 8-bit character set is very good for us -- we don't
have to have double meanings for some code elements in the 7-bit code
anymore. (Today "{" is sometimes a left brace, sometimes a lowercase
"a" with dots above.)
Something you do not seem to realize is that it is a very good idea for
everyone if we can make it work well. The problem is that we have not managed
to find a solution that everyone agrees is interoperable. We will keep plugging
on this until we do.
So, how do you then explain to the users that as a *consequence* of
this good improvement, they will have to live with the deterioration
that they can't write decent letters anymore? I can't.
There is no deteriotion. You are living in a fantasy world if you think
your present violations of RFC822 and RFC821 are not causing operability
problems. Sorry, it does cause them. We're trying to come up with a
scheme that does not.
I note in passing that your voice was not raised in the debate about how to
accomplish all of this using mnemonic or whatever. (At least I don't recall any
input from you -- correct me if I'm wrong.) We could have used your input
then... And consequently I have a little trouble with dealing with your input
now. If you want to solve these problems, offer up a proposal that addresses
the issues at hand, or endorse one or more of the proposals we have in front of
us that addresses the issues. For my part I'm now finished listening to your
complaints when you have nothing positive to offer. And frankly, your position
that this ignores a particularly European piece of the problem is offensive --
the folks here in the US have these problems too and want to solve them as much
as you do. That's why I have proposed various solutions to these problems, as
has Nathaniel, and so have many other American (and Australian) voices.
Ned