Paul Robinson writes:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 01:40:41PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
It's what 822 uses.
And we're having this discussion because we know 822 to be flawed.
Therefore, your point is irrelevant.
I beg to differ.
1. Even if 822's choice of charset were flawed, we still need
interoperation during the (probably very long) transition from 822 to
Mail-NG. It must be possible to write gateways.
2. While 822 is flawed in many ways, I don't see what would be gained by
(picking an example at random) using Cyrillic characters in the
message-id production I see on page 23 of RFC 2822. Latin seems just as
good and just as bad as Cyrillic there.
Unicode is a special character repertoire, because it includes all the
characters that are used today. Open a newspaper, any newspaper: The
characters you see are in Unicode, or in the pipeline.
US-ASCII is special because of the need for interoperation/gatewaying with 822.
Off-hand, I don't see any other special character repertoires.
Arnt