Excerpts from mail: 24-Oct-91 Re: Yet another proposal fo.. Harald T.
Alvestrand(_at_)del (681)
I think that Keith's proposal has the necessary quality to go into
the RFC.
Protests????????????
You'll get no protest from me on this score -- I really like Keith's
proposal, though I think it needs some tidying up around the edges. I
would be happy to see it incorporated into the document *IF* people
agree on it -- I would most definitely NOT be happy to see XXXX delayed
while we debate it. So I think the time has come for people strenuously
opposed to the basic concept of Keith's proposal (or its incorporation
into XXXX) to speak now or forever hold their peace.
I thought I'd just reaffirm my position on this. I think Keith's proposal
is a good one in a broad sense; it eliminates the need for replacing one
header with material from another without confining things to a single
character set.
I do have some outstanding nits to pick with it:
(1) I would like to see some alignment between the charsets it supports and
the ones RFC-XXXX allows in the body of a message. This is both a
present-day functional desire (align them now) as well as a future
procedural desire (adding a character set in the future should make it
possible to use it in both the header and the body of a message.
(2) Numbering things is fine but I want the ability to name them as well.
(3) I don't like the yet another encoding problem it raises. If we need to
change quoted-printable to align it with the needs of headers, we should
change it NOW. (Note that this in particular requires a change in RFC-XXXX
and not in Keith's proposal.) Is there any problem with replacing the :
with an =?
Those are my only nits to pick with the work Keith has done (and one of them
really has nothing to do with Keith's work). I still somewhat prefer the just
use mnemonic approach, but if these items are dealt with I'll be content with
the result.
Ned