From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 12:23:42 CST
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> 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.
As has oft been pointed out to you, Charles, neither you nor
Usefor has the authority to "extend" the definition of an
encoded-word, which is defined in the MIME RFCs which are
under the auspices of a different Area Director.