Kari Hurtta wrote:
["what is MIME"]
Was that discussed on meeting?
Don't think so, I only know the jabber log:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/eai/2007-03-20.html
You was suggested to ask from MIME experts that
Is UTF-8 possible in MIME version 1.0 header fields ?
What was result?
Nothing, unless "[10:39:54] --- nsb has joined"
indicates something that's not visible in the log.
My feel is that
- If UTF-8 can be added to address and subject
header fields without label, then UTF-8 can be added also
to MIME header fields without label.
Yes, that's where we disagree, because it makes the
identification of a message/utf-8 too difficult:
Looking into the header is one thing, but parsing
the body for MIME part headers is another thing:
Looking for somebody else's trouble, none of our
business, what if the MIME structure is broken,
should that affect message/utf-8 transport, etc.
It's IMO possible to implement 2049 ignoring
2231, and treat 2231 "features" as garbage.
Of course that software then couldn't claim to
support the (approved) NetNews message format,
but that RFC won't be published before another
RFC is ready... <sigh />
So changing MIME header field syntax yet one
more time is not different.
2231 is in a certain sense "compatible" with
MIME 1.0, while raw UTF-8 in Content-* header
fields directly _violates_ a requirement in
2045 (or whereever it was, we quoted it here
often enough).
