In <199902082331(_dot_)SAA08895(_at_)spot(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> Keith
Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> writes:
Yes, but we may be better off to have less variation in practice.
I'd rather have "just" some combination of encoded-words and raw
8859/1 to deal with, than to prematurely add UTF-8 to the mix.
I think if raw UTF-8 is going to be the eventual interpretation of headers
with 8th bits set in them (as opposed to treating it as iso-8859-1, which
people can get away with now) then there needs to be something said sooner
rather than later just in order to take possession of the high ground
before anyone else does. A few newsreaders that took the UTF-8
interpretation might work wonders just by setting the right precedents.
But total lack of public pronouncement on the issue will just open the way
for iso-8859-1 to win by default.
Yes, I know there is presently no machinery for making such public
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5