Re: document status: 3028bis, body, editheader

> "Mark E. Mallett" <mem(_at_)mv(_dot_)mv(_dot_)com> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:37:28PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> ...
> > > Section 5.7:
> > >    The "header" test evaluates to true if the value of any of the named
> > >    headers, ignoring leading and trailing whitespace, matches any key.
> > Now this brings up the question of what the "value of a header" is.  In
> > RFC2822-speak, it would probably really be the "field body of the named
> > header fields" .  "header" is used a lot in the draft to mean "header
> > field" so that's probably not worth going into (much as I would love to
> > suggest it), but the "value of a header" seems cloudy.  OTOH it's a lot
> > better than the current rfc3028.
> Fixing the draft to not use "header" when it means "header field"
> wouldn't be hard.  Ditto for aligning with 2822 on "field body".
> Does anyone actually think that change would be a _bad_ thing?
Sure sounds like a good thing to me. However, the material tested by header is
not, precisely speaking, the "body of the named header field". There's also
unfolding and decoding to consider. I suppose we could say "the unfolded and
decoded body of the named header field", although it's a bit of a mouthful.

                                Ned