ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Ned Freed writes:
> Is there any reason it can't be both?
Not particularly - I just like protocols that make up their mind. Call
it OSI/ISO-induced paranoia.
Personally, I'm more afraid of introducing silly states. What does it
mean when the switch is set to "non-mime" and there are encoded words
present. Or vice versa.
I agree; I think this is likely the right thing to do. I intend to
write this up. However I'm concerned about two things.
First, what is an editor client supposed to do when it encounters an
encoded-word string? Obviously it could present =?ISO-8859-1?....?= and
invite the user to edit it by hand. Perhaps that's the appropriate
thing, but I'm worried how such things could be misinterpreted. This is
at least consistent with some of the other things we've done, and I
think it's the right way to go, though.
I also suspect that some regions expect UTF-8 input in this context to
be in a more favored charset on outbound. I think permitting implicit
transcoding (or at least not forbidding it) is appropriate.
Tim