Re: RFC 934 for multipart encoding

[Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excerpts from mail: 25-Feb-91 Re: RFC 934 for multipart .. Erik
Naggum@naggum.uu.no (224)

> Because I'm so overwhelmingly negative to your attitude about 8-bit
> text, I feel it important that I publicly state that I think your
> solution with 934/1049 is a good one.  Modulo 8-bit text, of course.

Wow, perhaps this is the beginning of a new spirit of compromise!  I
wonder if we can somehow get the same thing to happen in the Middle
East...

In the same spirit, I should say that I certainly agree that the issues
are separable.  That is, one could pursue the kind of solution I'm
advocating quickly in the current 7-bit SMTP world, and simultaneously
pursue a strategy of upgrading SMTP to permit 8 bit data.  I see no
fundamental conflict here, though I do believe that upgrading SMTP will
be a much slower process.  Basically, I only argue against 8 bit SMTP
because I'm not convinced it is worth the effort, not because I think it
is intrinsically wrong.  I'd certainly be happy to separate the
arguments, and to give some consideration to how a 7 bit 1049/934
solution could be designed to gracefully upgrade to use 8 bit SMTP when
it becomes available.  (I.e. we should design it so that there is a
standard 7 bit encoding for 8 bit data, but also a standard method of
interpreting 8 bit data if and when the mailers begin to pass it
through.  This might imply something like the use of a Content-Encoding
header to accompany the Content-type.)

This strikes me as the beginning of a good compromise that might lead to
a consensus.  Other opinions?