From: David Barr (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jul 01 2002 - 11:48:22 CDT
> Yes, that is what we want to achieve. But you can't quite say
> MUST NOT, because there is too much existing practice. OTOH
> if you say SHOULD NOT, then they will say "Ah! I see it is
> not absolutely forbidden, so I will carry on doing it". So I
> wrote that it was "non-compliant" in the hope it would give
> the right message.
I don't see how dropping a hint that it was "non-compliant" is any
better than saying SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT. If you really are saying
that it is non-compliant than it should say one of those, otherwise
nothing at all. If we do wish to allow "cooperating subnets" to do
this, we should at least say SHOULD NOT.
This doesn't conflict with the long term UTF-8 goal many of us want. We
still need to have a standard by which the UTF-8 charset is labelled,
and until that happens it's healthy to say "no UTF-8".