NEW MIME DRAFT1991-12-30 11:19:33
I have produced an updated version of the MIME document. Unlike previous such announcements, this time I am announcing a relatively minor set of changes, based on the comments received since the version I announced at the beginning of December. It is my hope that this is the version that will become the Proposed Standard.
Basically, the changes are almost all minor. The three areas in which I anticipate that controversy might continue are the first three changes discussed in the list below.
There are also two open questions, which appear at the bottom of the change list.
As usual, you can ftp this anonymously from thumper.bellcore.com, where it can be found as
Changes In December 30 Version Of RFC-XXXX
Changes that might be controversial
CHARACTER SETS: This is, as we all know, a mess.
I have tried to effect a compromise between what I see as the two extremes
represented by Dave Crocker and Keld Simonsen. The new draft removes the
definition of the values "iso-10646" and "mnemonic", but retains the 8859-
family, US-ASCII, and ISO-2022-jp. I think this makes a lot of sense as a
"principled" solution to this dilemma -- it retains only the character sets
that are already in use in email today, defining strings with which to label
that usage. The new draft adds some new prose about "private" character set
values, which must begin with "X-", and refers the reader to RFC-CHAR for a
discussion of what other character sets there are and how to name them, i.e.
as "X-foo" where "foo" is defined in RFC-CHAR.
Changed to 1.0, but retained. Changed syntax to RFC 822 "text".
Picked up Alain Fontaine's new definition of this encoding, which is a
clarification but not a change.
Unchanged Issues To Be Resolved
Reconcile the quoted-printable encoding with the "Q" encoding in
RFC-HDRS? I vote for removing the special interpretation of "_" in "Q".