Re: RFC 934 for multipart encoding

[kankkune@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Risto Kankkunen)]

> > 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!

> 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'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.)

In case anyone hasn't noticed, this is just what I'd like to be done.


-- 
 Risto Kankkunen                   kankkune@cs.Helsinki.FI (Internet)
 Department of Computer Science    kankkunen@finuh          (Bitnet)
 University of Helsinki, Finland   ..!mcsun!uhecs!kankkune   (UUCP)