Quoteing blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com, on Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:09:16AM -0500:
Sam Roberts wrote:
Quoteing blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com, on Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:39:26PM
-0500:
The draft permits a UA to generate raw utf-8. That is then passed to
an injection agent, which determines that one or more newsgroups are
moderated. Existing injection agents do not transform raw-utf-8,
and no existing or future injection agent can transform any untagged
8-bit content without charset and language information.
Why not?
The charset seems clearly to be utf-8!
No, in fact Usenet (and mail) abounds with a large variety
of untagged 8-bit charsets.
Sorry, none of that is validly encoded, and has specifically NO meaning,
unless assigned one.
Backwards compatibility with standards compliant messages, that I
understand, but backwards compatiblity with invalidly encoded messages?
And a langugae tag is only allowed for paramaters, and even there is
optional, is it not?
No, language-tagging is provided by MIME for RFC 2047
encoded-words also.
And is still optional, so does nothing to explain why you would make the
statement "no existing or future injection agent can transform any
untagged 8-bit content without charset and language information".
Apparently there are problems, but lack of charset information and
language tagging doesn't seem to be.
Cheers,
Sam