Frank opined: > > > I have rewritten Section 2.1.1 some more and those changes > > went along for the ride. If you're interesting in issue #944, > > you should go read that section again and send comments > > Not new, but reading it again it still tickles me: You say... > > | a combined total length of up to six characters, much larger > | registered tags were not only possible but were actually > | registered. > > ...if this "much longer" stands for "almost 67% longer" it's > true, but OTOH ten characters is not _that_ long, if it's the > worst registered 3066bis tag. [Addison Phillips] The longest is "cel-gaulish" (11 characters), so 83% longer. But, of course, this is not "much" larger. It's only if Han Steenwijk had gone forward with his plans that we would have a whopping great tag to point to. > > Here's a "normative" typo: [Addison Phillips] <deleted a great deal of useful information> > > Total length for the worst case from SP up to ?= therefore 22, > 76-22=54. For many Q-encoded US-ASCII characters it's only > one byte resulting in an absolute _maximum_ of 76-15 = 61: > > =?utf-8*?Q?3?= > 123456789012345 (15) > > And for the worst Q-encoded case it is 76-26=50. I agreed with all the deleted stuff and this example. A couple of points: 1. The Content-Language header has a limit of 60 (78-18). 2. The shortest charset alias I saw was two characters, so 76-12 = 64. 3. The longest charset permitted is 40, so it's 76-50 = 26, assuming ASCII characters, 76-52 = 24 (single-byte), or 76-55 = 21 (two-byte). > > Now that's a nice number needing no explicit justification, you > could say: vv > Thus the "limit" might be 50 or more characters, but it could > potentially be quite small [Addison Phillips] Draft-5 will use this locution. Thanks! Addison _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.