On Tue, 1 Sep 1998 Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
OK.. is the *exact* problem the interaction with QP?
Quoted-printable has a very bad reputation in many parts of the field.
The derogatory term "quoted-unreadable" is quite common. In fact, there
is some evidence that a significant number of people prefer the
non-interoperable "just-send-8" (and hope you don't lose) to interoperable
quoted-printable. In those parts of the Internet which hate
quoted-printable, probably the only thing more loathed is text/html. :-)
Should the fact these solutions are hated by some stop us from trying to
deploy interoperable and backwards compatible standards? No.
Should it make us think twice before using such services in combination
with an acceptance-sensitive proposal? Definitely.
Should we instead have strong language saying what
MUST be done to support format=flowed correctly if using (for instance)
ISO8859-4?
When 8BITMIME transport is lacking and 8-bit is used, obviously
downconversion is a MUST for interoperability. But in all other cases,
quoted-printable would be dangerous with this particular media type. I'd
go so far as to say that quoted-printable SHOULD NOT be used to protect
the whitespace at the end of the lines, as use of quoted-printable will
likely cause more harm than losing the trailing whitespace (and in the
latter case, the harm is more likely to be blamed on the guilty party).
Client implementors of this proposal should be strongly encouraged to
use ESMTP 8BITMIME instead of quoted-printable whenever possible (but this
need not be a normative statement).
Unacceptable: Language that implies this is only usable with English.
You know me well enough to know I'd never propose such a thing.
- Chris