From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 11:24:22 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> However, any detailed discussion of such issues belongs in USEAGE (where
> we might even point them in the direction of format=flowed).
We might, but there are issues with that. One is that that format
results in trailing whitespace, and the only reliable way to ensure
that trailing whitespace is preserved is via non-unity transfer
encoding (quoted-printable or base64). draft-gellens-format-bis-00.txt
has some peculiarities regarding that; while it requires encoding for
signed messages, quoted-printable is specifically prohibited with a
rationale that a non-MIME reader might not like to look at quoted-
printable encoding. I suspect that it's unlikely that such a reader
would actually *prefer* to look at raw base64, but that's what is implied.
In any event, format=flowed applies to body content, not to header
fields, and as newsgroup names appear in header fields, if length of
those names (and/or their components) is an issue at all, we should
say something relevant in USEFOR. As discussed earlier, obviously the
common message format maximum line length (in the absence of a documented
mechanism for splitting and combining names, such as permitting line
folding between components) is a technical limit on length. We probably
don't need to mention that, as it's implicit in referring to 2822[*].
But there may be lower limits imposed by NNTP and IMAP protocols and/or
implementations, and if so we should incorporate those limits into the
syntax (with mention of the technical limit(s) as an issue in addition
to display where newsgroup name/component length is discussed in USEAGE).
Note:
* unless the must-have-non-whitespace-content-on-first-field-line rule
remains a MUST, in which case we need to at least note that a long
newsgroup name that fits on the first line of a Newsgroups header field
is still unacceptably ling because it will fail to fit on the first
line of a Followup-To header field.
> The most we
> might do in USEFOR is an advisory remark that keeping within 79 characters
> was a Good Thing.
At one time, 79 might have been an appropriate magic number, but
that time (if it in fact existed) has passed. I suggest instead that
we have a brief mention of display (in USEAGE) as an issue to be
considered in naming newsgroups, possibly pointing out some of the
relevant sub-issues, and using appropriate wording to indicate that there
is no universal magic number that applies in all cases (e.g. wording
similar to that in RFC 1958 section 3.1).