Charles Lindsey wrote:
In <3E1F2AAC(_dot_)1000408(_at_)Sonietta(_dot_)blilly(_dot_)com> Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> writes:
That would only work if it could be absolutely guaranteed that no untagged
data in any other character set might appear. No such guarantee is possible,
and in fact Usenet abounds with untagged charsets, of which, according to
Andrew Gierth, "no significant amount" is utf-8.
Not so. Untagged data in "any other" charset would be non-compliant with
the standard,
Clearly, that is being handled as a religious issue; 'thou shalt have no
gods other than utf-8', and would delare those other charsets 'heretical'.
If you think carefully and objectively about why untagged 8-bit content
in charsets other than utf-8 is bad, you will realize why untagged utf-8
is also bad. But fundamentalist religious zealots never think objectively
about their beliefs...
> Usefor does provide a _suggested_ way out which, if followed,
will result in nothing worse that the present unsatisfactory state of
affairs).
I.e. it will remain an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Unsatisfactory
because of lack of compatibility with the installed base which has remained
compliant with the RFC 1036 article format.
Having said that, if someone can propose a tagging scheme for such headers
(and that might well include language tags), then there is no reason why
Usefor could not consider it.
It's in RFC 2047 as amended by RFC 2231 and errata. That will work for
everything except newsgroup component tags, for which several workable,
compatible methods have been proposed.