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

[Julien ÉLIE <[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.
[…]



>> [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.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« – C'est un drôle de nom, HCL.
   – C'est son immatriculation d'espion. Son vrai nom, c'est
     Acidcloridrix… » (Astérix)