From: Ian Bell (ianbell@turnpike.com)
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 11:26:32 CST
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>In <e8bG5rGgoGm8IAwa@pillar.turnpike.com> Ian Bell
><ianbell@turnpike.com> writes:
>>But MIME is _not_ for USEFOR to define. RFC2231 also transmits language
>>information and allows for long parameters, so when (!) MIME is extended
>>to allow 8bit headers, it may (will) not be done in the way you are
>>proposing.
>
>I do not think we want to be a party to any standard that REQUIRES yet
>more of cramming octets into a 7bit stream. Just because the mail people
>are in a hole and still digging.
The fact remains that you are trying to extending MIME in a way that
doesn't even try to cover all the ground that RFC2231 does (language and
parameter lengths) and so seems unlikely to be usable by the mail people
when (!) 8bit extensions to mail do come along.
In another context (Reply-To:) you write:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Charles Lindsey <chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>It seems to me that you are asking me to create a syntax something like
>
>Reply-To-content = address-list / [display-name] [CFWS] "<>" [CFWS]
>
>There is no way I am going to do that unless there is a VERY strong push
>from this list. And even if we did, there is no way the IESG would wear
>it. After all, we are supposed to be moving closer to Email, not away from
>it.
Isn't it likely the IESG won't wear what you are trying to do with MIME
either?
-- Ian Bell T U R N P I K E