[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] RFC 2047 vs RFC 2231 encoding for MIME parameters
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:19:13 -0400

>That Chrome decodes the broken encoding isn't a reason for Gmail to
>continue to produce it if Chrome decodes the correct content too?  Is
>there somewhere where a Googler states that's the reason to keep
>producing RFC-violating content?


This was talking specifically about HTTP header field parameters, but
the same issues apply.  Here's a note from that thread:

-There are web sites that indeed use RFC 2047 encoding (GMail, probably
-other Google services, and maybe more...); and one explanation for it
-is that it "works" in both Firefox and Chrome and thus does allow a
-single code path.

>I'm all for balking at handling it, similar to

Well, we don't balk right now.  It still gets parsed correctly.  It's
just when you go to save it, the filename is the RFC 2047 encoded name.
Which, AFAIK, is still a valid (if awkward) Unix filename.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]