Full-width/half-width issues

 > However, if we have to worry about whitespace, then we have to worry
 > about whether we should keep the (2)822 definition of whitespace, or
 > generalize it to all whitespace chars.  (The draft generalizes it only
 > to full-width space).  One approach that would avoid the issue
 > entirely would be to require non-traditional addresses to avoid using
 > the obsolete syntax of 2822.  This would avoid any use of unquoted
 > whitespace in a non-traditional addr-spec.
 > 
 > (If the requirement was that the address avoided the use of obsolete
 > syntax after canonical decompositions were applied, this would also
 > prohibit the unquoted use of characters such as parenthesized digits.)

Forget I said that.  RFC 2822 appears to still allow whitespace and
comments adjecent to the at-sign.  (Though I still think there's merit
in prohibiting the use of the obsolete syntax with non-traditional
addresses.)

(Oops, and there's no such thing as FULL WIDTH SPACE, I guess the
space character in JIS X 0208 is IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE.)

So the question remains, should one allow all unicode whitespace
characters, rather than just SPACE and HT?

It strikes me as confusing (and ultimately wrong) that the validity of
an address can depend on the kind of whitespace used.  Though I've
never actually seen anyone use unquoted whitespace in an address, so
maybe this can just be ignored....

	-roy