In <990212100546(_dot_)ZM10416(_at_)candle(_dot_)brasslantern(_dot_)com> "Bart
Schaefer" <schaefer(_at_)brasslantern(_dot_)com> writes:
I think I agree with Keith that a new header field doesn't really help.
I'm not a UTF-8 expert by any means, but it sounds like recognizing the
strings individually is sufficient. We've got these cases:
1. Plain unlabeled (non-UTF-8) octets.
2. A UTF-8 string, which can be recognized by its structure.
3. An RFC2047 string, which can be recognized and the character set
extracted.
4. An RFC2231 string, which can be recognized and the character set
and language extracted.
There is also case 5:
5. The header cannot be recognised as any of the above.
In which case, it is broken and all bets are off. If some agent manages to
produce an interpretation which makes sense to its readers, then good luck
to it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Web:
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
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