- From: Martin J. Duerst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:23:21 +0100 (MET)
- To: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
- cc: Drazen Kacar <Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr>, Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr, www-international@w3.org, Alan_Barrett/DUB/Lotus.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com, bobj@netscape.com, wjs@netscape.com, Ed_Batutis/CAM/Lotus@crd.lotus.com
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Erik van der Poel wrote:
> > RFC 1522 is designed for 7-bit channels. If you have an 8-bit
> > channel, there is no reason to use it.
>
> No, 1522 was designed for something far more restrictive than a simple
> 7-bit channel. It was designed for email headers (e.g. To:, Cc:, From:,
> etc).
>
> In these headers, characters such as comma, '<', '>', '(', ')' and so on
> have a special meaning, and there is a *lot* of software out there that
> does stuff with these characters. RFC 1522 has a lot of rules for this
> type of thing.
>
> So, even if you have an 8-bit email channel, RFC 1522 is needed.
Erik - You are right in what concerns the use of RFC 1522 in email
headers. However, for the problem I was discussing (the use of RFC
1522, and the strange exception for ISO-8859-1, in HTTP 1.1 warnings),
these considerations are not really important. The only thing you
may have to escape in a warning is a CRLF.
Regards, Martin.
Received on Thursday, 12 December 1996 05:47:44 UTC