Ned writes as a comment of my comments to...
Was it presented on this list? I remember TEX-HEX being mentioned a couple of
times. I don't think an explanation of what TEX-HEX is was ever posted, despite
requests for it.
I'm pretty sure it has been distributed on this list also
in january 1991.
If you want a re-post of it, I'll be glad to help you.
To repeat the present position: The current proposal is not to address this
issue in RFC-XXXX. In other words, we are changing nothing. What is illegal
before remains illegal now. By doing this we can reach closure on RFC-XXXX
without having to wait to close this issue. Now that we seem to have your
attention we may be able to drive this to closure relatively rapidly ;-)
Yes, I see your arguments and will not look like an(other) angry, stupid,
swede just shouting around and not arguing.
I apologize that I might have rized my voice too much.
The difference between "before" and "now" is that our users on our
computers now really can produce illegal characters. I have to
write hundreds and hundreds of programs to filter every damn character
on my mashine so it will not slip one illegal characetr
outside my domain. Before it was much simpler, the terminals and the
computers only generated US-ASCII in the range 0-127.
My hard arguments for an encoding of the text-headers was to minimize
my work when we start to use RCF-XXXX I think. I might be lazy(?) ;-)
Actually, this is not the third repetition. It is about the tenth. This is
pretty much the same as what Bob Smart and I, among others, have been proposing
for about a month.
I'm sorry not to have read all of the mails on this list.
As I said in my first contribution, I am now only concerned with the
"*text" fields (actually only the Subject field), isn't it reasonable
to treat them separately from the fields which are parsed?
I think it is. Other people did not agree and we could not come to closure on
this.
Ok, if there have been a dicussion (which it has as you say) and some
could not be convinced, then I'm sorry about that, but resign. In a
discussion samone has to draw back his ideas, and now I do that.
It is one step ahead to let people use extended character sets in the
body of their mail. We have to wait with using that in
the headers.
Ned
Patrik