From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 11:00:31 CST
J.B. Moreno wrote:
> On 3/5/03 10:15 AM, Bruce Lilly at <blilly@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>J.B. Moreno wrote:
>
>
>>>while dropping 15% of the feed as "non-compliant" is fine, accepting
>>>0.017% of that 15% would be unacceptable because half of that 0.017% would
>>>be mis-identified,
>>
>>A 0.006% solution is for all practical purposes the same as no solution
>>at all. That's not a political issue; it's an engineering fact.
>
>
> If it was an just an engineering fact then people would be arguing that it's
> a waste of time to code such a test, not that it "is just another guess the
> charset".
[...]
You seem to have missed the point; let me rephrase it:
Blessing utf-8 doesn't address the use of untagged raw 8-bit header
content *other* than utf-8, and utf-8 is an insignificant part of
that use. I.e. blessing utf-8 not only doesn't solve the problem,
it doesn't even come close to making a dent in the size of the problem.