Re: a few short notes

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