With all respect to Keith, I think he is too pessimistic on behalf of
After all, his proposal came after a flurry of different proposals (some
of them mine) had been roundly trounced as totally unusable, and we all
sat back and said "Yes, this works", or words to that effect.
Nobody, including Keith, likes to look at them, I think, but they WORK!
Since nobody has come up with a better wheel, I suggest that we go on
using them, perhaps with suitable profiling, like:
- State that the whole filename has to be in encoded-words if any of
it is, to avoid the "we don't know where it ends" argument
- State that the rules of RFC 1522, section 5, bullet (1) are applicable
to the "filename" field
- State that the mapping between encoded-words and the local filename
character set is a local matter
I agree that the ambiguity on significant whitespace in 1522 needs to
be fixed - if it is as ambiguous as people say; I'm not sure.