Re: [art] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7578 (5616)

[Alessandro Vesely <[e-mail]>]

On Thu 31/Jan/2019 19:20:19 +0100 John Levine wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>> Section 4.7 says that "Senders SHOULD NOT generate any parts with a Content-Transfer-Encoding header field."
>>
>>The "Original Text" gives an example, which seems to me to be correct.
>>However, as the erratum notes, the example violates the SHOULD NOT in
>>section 4.7.  And as section 4.7 notes, "Currently, no deployed
>>implementations that send such bodies have been discovered.", suggesting
>>that the example is not representative of current practice.
>>
>>But the proposed "Corrected Text" is itself incorrect, in that the
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding header is still present -- the given body
>>isn't valid for quoted-printable.
> 
> I'd leave it alone.  The example makes sense as is -- we don't
> encourage encoding the data but if you have to, here's how to do it.
> 
> At most hold for update to either redo the example with no encoding or
> add a warning about why this is a bad example.


Redoing the example without visible encoding (possibly writing € instead of
<eu>) would make little sense, as the reader cannot check what character set is
being used, which is what the example means to show.  Alternatively, it could
say "where <eu> is the Euro symbol encoded in UTF-8", to make the example
comprehensible, but still less clear than it is now.


Best
Ale
--