On Sep 16, 2010, at 09:34 PM, R. David Murray wrote: >Say we start with this bytes input: > > To: Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> > From: "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > Subject: =?utf-8?q?p=F6stal?= > > A simple message. > >Part of the responsibility of the email module is to provide that >in text form on demand, so the application gets: > > To: Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> > From: "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > Subject: pöstal > > A simple message. > >Now the application allows the user to do some manipulation of that, >and we have: > > To: "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> > From: Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com> > Subject: Re: pöstal > > A simple reply.
And of course, what happens if the original subject is in one charset and the prefix is in an incompatible one? Then you end up with a wire format of two RFC 2047 encoded words separated by whitespace. You have to keep those chunks separate all the way through to do that properly. (I know RDM knows this. :) >But I *am* open to being convinced otherwise. If everyone hates the >BytesMessage/StringMessage API design, then that should certainly not >be what we implement in email. Just as a point of order, to the extent that we're discussing generic approaches to similar problems across multiple modules, it's okay that we're having this discussion on python-dev. But the email-sig has put in a lot of work on specific API and implementation designs for the email package, so any deviation really needs to be debated, discussed, and decided there. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
