Re: document status: 3028bis, body, editheader

On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 11:07:55AM -0800, Ned Freed wrote:
> > 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.
Insert a reference to RFC 2822 for unfolding and say MIME-decoded with
a reference to RFC 2047 instead of decoded to make it worse, and I will
be happy, too.  Honestly, I am glad for each bit of precision when it
comes to specifications.

Michael