From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 05:51:02 CST
In <3E3EEB4F.5090100@Sonietta.blilly.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> However, a really ugly thought occurred to me last night. Suppose we
>> invent a new encoding for RFC 2047 (which is allowed), and also extend the
^^^^^^
>> characters allowed in 'encoded-text' to include 8bit chars
>The last part is where that breaks; the characters used in an encoded-word
>are a subset of us-ascii (most restrictive in a phrase, less so in comments
>and unstructured text). The encoded-text, which is obviously part of the
>encoded-word has to fit in that subset.
Please observe carefully my use of the word "extend" above.
Allow me to give you a lesson in the interpretation of simple English.
If a standard does not allow X, but an extended version of that standard
does allow X, then X is, by definition, allowed by the extended standard.
You cannot say that it is not allowed by the extended standard just
because it was not allowed by the original.
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5