Re: format=flowed : why not use HTML?

[Laurence Lundblade <lgl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Chris's concern is that it will get stigmatized as yet another
format that includes formatting crud that users don't want to see.  So how
about something like this.

"QP encoding MUST be used when necessary to encoded non-US characters;
however it SHOULD not be used unless necessary. It is preferable to risk
formatting damage than to insert formatting crud that may cause the
format=flow text format to be rejected by end users as incompatible with
plain text"

LL


At 10:17 AM -0400 9/1/98, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:32:16 PDT, you said:
>> Before I'd be willing to support a proposed standard last call on
>> format=flowed, I'd want to make sure there's strong language discouraging
>> the use of quoted-printable with it, and that we've had a reasonable
>
>OK.. is the *exact* problem the interaction with QP?  Would dropping
>to Base64 fix it?  Should we instead have strong language saying what
>MUST be done to support format=flowed correctly if using (for instance)
>ISO8859-4?
>
>I have to rate as show-stopper any proposal that doesn't permit correct
>operation with ISO8859-x.  I'd even be tempted to say that it has to deal
>with RFC1556, except that's only "Informational".
>
>Acceptable:  List of additional 'MUST' and 'SHOULD' items for use with
>QP and/or non-ASCII text, which may result in extra hoops to jump through
>for the MUA author.
>
>Unacceptable: Language that implies this is only usable with English.
>
>--
>				Valdis Kletnieks
>				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
>				Virginia Tech
>
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>Attachment converted: llundblade:Untitled 59 (????/----) (0002560B)