On 2/21/2013 2:16 PM, Brian Utterback wrote:
Now, if you don't like RFC2646, you might say it's not a standard and
that you won't follow it, but I don't think you should get a lot of
sympathy, just as if you decided that you were going to ignore RFC 1305
because it isn't a standard.
2646 has been obsoleted by 3676, which along with 1000 others, is only a
"proposed standard," where "deploying implementations of such standards
into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended." Hardly
something to demand compliance with if you're trying to find fault with
a released MUA.
If you want to appeal to a widely accepted specification for MIME, then
the draft standard ("it is reasonable for vendors to deploy
implementations of Draft Standards into a disruption sensitive
environment.") RFC2046 is where you look, especially when discussing an
email which is clearly not using the 3676 Format Parameter. If there's
an issue with an MUA which attempts to implement 3676 when displaying a
2046 formatted message, then the problem is with either 3676 or the
implementation in the MUA.
RFC2046:
"the subtype "text/plain", which is a generic subtype for plain text.
Plain text does not provide for or allow formatting commands, font
attribute specifications, processing instructions, interpretation
directives, or content markup. Plain text is seen simply as a linear
sequence of characters, possibly interrupted by line breaks or page
breaks. "
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
