ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Interpretation of RFC 2047

2003-01-04 10:55:02

Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <3E089CCB(_dot_)7040407(_at_)alex(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly 
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:

Surely you're not suggesting that correct use of the List-Owner etc. header
fields to generate messages to the list owner etc. would be to use the raw
URL %-encoded text in the headers?


That is exactly what I would suggest for general use.

So you're saying that given

   List-Owner: 
<mailto:%20%3D%3fiso-8859-1%3FQ%3fJ%3dFCrgen%3F%3d%20%3cj(_at_)foo(_dot_)com%3E>

you would construct

  To: %20%3D%3fiso-8859-1%3FQ%3fJ%3dFCrgen%3F%3d%20%3cj(_at_)foo(_dot_)com%3E

Good luck.


Now all this could change if IRIs (draft-duerst-iri-02.txt) should get to
the standard stage.

No, it would not change one whit. List-Owner et al. specifically refer
to URIs, and that would remain the case unless and until the defining
RFC is superseded.

URLs can contain parentheses (which is why there's a problem with the
RFC 2557 ABNF and CFWS).


Which is a good reason for putting URLs inside <...>, and ensuring that
nobody goes looking for comments inside there.

1. You are of course free to suggest bracketing URIs to the authors of RFCs
   2557 and 2017, but the current situation is that unadorned URIs may
   appear in a number of places, and those URIs may conntain parentheses.
   and that the only way to determine whether or not something bracketed in
   matching parenthese is or is not a comment is by consideration of the
   header field ABNF in conjunction with any relevant field component
   structure specification.

2. Comments may well exist within angle brackets, e.g.:

  Return-Path: <(=?us-ascii?q?foo?=)>

   See RFC 2822 section 3.6.7.  [BTW, do you make up these "rules" about
   where to look for comments as you go along, or have you bothered to
   think about the issue?]



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>