ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: latest draft - content-transfer-encoding

1992-02-28 15:07:46
Well, there was a conscious decision to make content-transfer-encodings
HARDER to define, because they can so easily make recognized types
unusable if the encoding isn't implemented locally.  (Other extensions,
notably new subtypes, only make UNRECOGNIZED PARTS unusable, but can't
make recognized parts unusable.  The basic idea was that there would be
VERY FEW encodings.

However, I think I'm missing something.  Why do you need to use UTF as
an encoding?  Why can't the sepc for iso 10646 as a character set simply
say that it the "raw" data is UTF-encoded 10646?  If the only use for an
encoding is to encode a specific type, then it isn't a
content-transfer-encoding, it's simply the chosen representation format
for that specific type.