-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 05 December 2001 16:37, Keith Moore wrote:
Is it safe to make UTF-7 the charset to use as "last
resort" instead of UTF-8?
No. The only charset supported by all major MUAs is ASCII.
Though I think you know very well what I meant, let me restate the
questions more precisely ;-)
When sending a textual mail, we have to choose a charset that is capable
of representing all contained characters (internally, we use unicode)
to use for the text/plain body part. We currently try us-ascii,<locale
charset>,utf-8 (in that order). So you could see UTF-8 as a fallback
for _text/plain bodypart charsets_.
Now, we are discussing making UTF-7 that default instead of UTF-8,
because it doesnt need further Content-Transfer-Encoding processing on
top of it.
Would we seriously decrease interoperability with other mail clients by
doing this? And don't tell me: "Yes, with all those who don't speak
anything but us-ascii" because they are not a likely target of a mail
that someone sends, but which can't be represented in his own locale's
charset. Also, the question is not "shall we use charsets other than
us-ascii", but "is it OK to use UTF-7 where we'd else use UTF-8"?
Hope I made my question clear enough this time. :-)
Marc
- --
An der Prioritätenskala wehrhafter Demokratien gibt es nichts zu
deuteln: Erst kommt die Stärke, dann Freiheit Hand in Hand mit der
Gerechtigkeit und in der Nachhut trottet der Frieden hinterher.
-- Goedart Palm "Der Friedensnobelpreis und ein bisschen Krieg"
Telepolis 2001/10/13 (#9807)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8Dmmc3oWD+L2/6DgRAj3uAKCbzdKqh099aal6TbAjg/zh7zZKNACfRJ3W
vIvm0mtF8Tu5eZ8BwHsqVtE=
=2mo6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----