[Top] [All Lists]

Re: document status: 3028bis, body, editheader

2006-03-22 13:53:34

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 
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.