On 1/26/08 at 10:47 PM -0500, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Section 2.1.1 states in part:
Again, even though this limitation is
put on messages, it is incumbant upon implementations which display
messages to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a
line (certainly at least up to the 998 character limit) for the sake
[off-topic] "incumbant" should be "incumbent". A spell-checker can
find this and many other similar errors in the text...
[off-topic] A spell-checker found exactly *one* similar error in the text...
No! The MIME RFCs specifically state that lines (in header or body)
which use MIME encoding are limited to 76 (N.B. not 78 or 998)
I agree with Frank's comments in later messages with regard to this
(and 3.5 below): MIME can extend (or limit) this document in any way
it seems fit. However, it most certainly is incumbent upon
implementations to deal with longer lines than MIME allows. I don't
think you're going to find much support at all for your position.
Section 2.3 states in part (I'll address the other part in a
Note: As was stated earlier, there are other documents,
specifically the MIME documents ([RFC2045], [RFC2046], [RFC2049],
[RFC4288], [RFC4289]), that extend this specification to allow for
different sorts of message bodies. Again, these mechanisms are
beyond the scope of this document.
Note (as stated above) that the MIME RFCs *limit* line lengths to 76
characters when MIME encoding is used. The text "extend this
specification" might be misinterpreted (76 characters is a
*limitation*, not an *extension*) w.r.t. line length limits. At a
minimum, some clarification of this point is needed in the draft
Happy to clarify.
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102