Re: First strawman for UTF-8 headers proposal

Adam M. Costello scripsit:

> If the message store is a
> plain text file, what chaos might ensue?  Perhaps the UTF-8 headers
> should be segregated somehow, so they don't accidentally fool old
> software into thinking it knows what to do with them.  

Note that "plain text" should not be used as a synonym for "ASCII
plain text"; UTF-8 files are plain text if they contain a sequence of
characters each used for its ordinary meaning, neither binary nor
markup.

> There is something that encoded-words can do that your UTF-8 header
> proposal cannot do: encoded-words can indicate the language of the
> text.  

Does anyone actually do anything useful with this part of RFC 2231?

> If one goal of the UTF-8 proposal is
> to make encoded-words unnecessary, does the UTF-8 proposal need a
> language-tagging capability?  Or is this not useful enough to warrant
> the added complexity?

Language-tagging plain text is rarely necessary.  When necessary, it is
rarely sufficient.

-- 
With techies, I've generally found              John Cowan
If your arguments lose the first round          http://www.reutershealth.com
    Make it rhyme, make it scan                 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    Then you generally can                      [email protected]
Make the same stupid point seem profound!           --Jonathan Robie