From: John Dlugosz
96-character G0 ASCII is a proper subset of UTF-8.
Lots of Internet protocol headers are based on a common design that uses
this small character set. Is there any reason to break from that, rather
than saying "just like all the others"?
If the reason is to have arbitrary chars in the comment etc., then perhaps
say that it's UTF-8 but the keyword before the ':' must be confined to the
G0 characters, and the linebreak is that of the surrounding document (what
about the Unicode libebreak/parabreak chars?).
Jon Callas <jon(_at_)callas(_dot_)org>@mail.imc.org on 04-17-2002 05:54:01 PM
Sent by: owner-ietf-openpgp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
To: ietf-openpgp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
cc:
Subject: What's left before a new RFC?
When I sent out bis04, it had all previous changes and additions in it.
Thomas Roessler is convincing me that I may need to tighten up the language
about UTF-8. If anyone out there disagrees with him, speak up.
I'm willing to put in a note to say that the Version and Comment headers in
armor SHOULD or MUST be ASCII. I don't like it (I want everything to be
UTF-8), but I'll do it. Is UTF-7 too grotesque?
I know of no other desired changes. I would like bis-05 to be Penultimate
Call. Does anyone object?
Jon