From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar-usefor@algonet.se)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 11:50:26 CDT
list-ietf-wg-apps-usefor@faerber.muc.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=) writes:
> Erland Sommarskog <sommar-usefor@algonet.se> schrieb/wrote:
> > What we all were very much in agreement on was that RFC2047 is a hassle
> > in general, and for Newsgroups completely impossible. Then over the
> > years, there has been the occassional guest who have opposed raw UTF-8
> > and suggested various other schemes. (And =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus_F=E4rber?=
> > did every once in a while suggest some alternative encoding.)
>
> Please quote me correctly. I did never suggest an alternative to RFC
> 2047.
You have been suggesting UTF-7, UTF-9, Punycode and God knows what.
I can, however not recall that you have advocated RFC2047 for newsgroup
names.
> Further, you are again implying that newsgroups names and human-readable
> text need to share the same encoding. This is plain wrong.
Certainly, there has not been very much discussion on Usefor to use
different encodings for different headers.
By the way, newsgroup names are, despite various sci-fi ideas floated
around here, human-readable text, and will remain so for the forseeable
future.
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se