Re: [EAI] Question about draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12.txt

[[e-mail]]

> Hi Ned,

> > Longer answer: There is no expectation that the current use of utf-8 will ever
> > be "upgraded" to utf-16, utf-32, or anything else. Utf-8 is where we're headed.
> > See RFC 2277.

> OK, thanks for your answer.
> Also many thanks to Frank for his detailed history on this subject.



> >>>    Background: Normally, transfer of message/global will be done in
> >>>    8-bit-clean channels, and body parts will have "identity" encodings,
> >>>    that is, no decoding is necessary.
> >
> >> Two spaces after ":", as it is already the case in the rest of the document.
> >
> > I just checked; there is no other place where two spaces are used. I dislike
> > this sort of double spacing and so don't use it. (If the RFC Editor disagrees
> > that's fine too.)

>     Encoding considerations:  Any content-transfer-encoding is permitted.
>        The 8-bit or binary content-transfer-encodings are recommended
>        where permitted.
>     Security considerations:  See Section 4.
> […]

I'm talking about the source file, not the xml2rfc output. I have no control
over whether or not xml2rfc double spaces after colons or periods.

> >> [Section 3.7]
> >>>    Encoding considerations: […]
> >>>       The 8-bit or binary content-transfer-encodings are recommended
> >>>       where permitted.
> >>> […]
> >>>    Restrictions on usage: […] The 8-bit or binary content-transfer-
> >>>       encoding SHOULD be used unless this media type is sent over a
> >>>       7-bit-only transport.
> >
> >> Shouldn't "content-transfer-encoding" be written similarly?  (either
> >> in plural form or in singular form)
> >
> > No, this one looks right to me as-is.

> The same construction "The 8-bit or binary content-transfer-encoding(s)"
> is used in the quoted paragraphs above.  I thought it should be homogenized.

And I disagree. The mistake is the choice of article, not the use of singular
or plural.

				Ned