Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8headers-00.txt

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:15:34 -0500, Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote:

> having a single flag to say that fields are in utf-8 is ridiculous - 
> first because the fields aren't all generated at the same place, and 
> second because (as you point out) you potentially have to scan the whole 
> header anyway to find the new header field.

He who knowingly generates a UTF-8 header would be responsible for 
ensuring that the "Foobar" header was added, if not already present. IOW, 
those who want to use this new-fangled UTF-8 stuff would be the ones to 
bear the cost.
>
> but as far as I'm concerned putting utf-8 in headers is a nonstarter 
> anyway.  there's simply no justification for  it.

Maybe not, but the problem is that it is going to happen whether you like 
it or not, because people will find that it "just works" (well, mostly). 
Indeed it is already happening, except that the code used is usually not 
UTF-8.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email protected]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5