David Goldsmith wrote on 1997-07-17 00:25 UTC:
> >It is a good point. I will consider adding UTF-8 for mail encoding
> >instead of using UTF-7
> There are still lots of 7-bit mail systems out there.
Where? I haven't seen one for many months, and they disappear rather
quickly these days ...
> UTF-7 can be sent with the 7BIT c-t-e, like ISO-2022. UTF-8
> has to be sent with 8BIT, quoted-printable, or base64. Is there a problem
> in supporting both options?
Netscape 3.0 for Unix has in the Options|Mail and News Preferences|Compose
menue a section
When composing Mail and News Messages
Send and Post: X Allow 8-bit _ MIME Compliant (Quoted Printable)
with the default on "Allow 8-bit". I would suggest, in case this switch
is set to allow 8-bit and the outgoing message contains any character
> U+00FF, then definitely use UTF-8 with 8-bit encoding.
If the MIME Compliant option is selected, then if there are > U+00FF
characters in the message, then use UTF-8 in the quoted-printable encoding.
If there should be *really* a high demand for UTF-7 from the customer base,
then you can easily add a third menu item
_ MIME Compliant (UTF-7 for Unicode)
but I doubt that anyone will really care. UTF-8 is the recommended
default encoding for the future of the Internet, so lets worry about
alternatives only if it turns out that we *really* need it.
Using UTF-8 in quoted-printable or base64 encodings has the big advantage
over UTF-7, that modern ESMTP agents can automatically convert between
quoted printable and 8-bit, but they know nothing about UTF-7, and
this way, UTF-7 somehow falls out of the concept.
-- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Science grad student, Purdue University, Indiana, USA -- email: email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT