Sabahattin Gucukoglu <listsebby@xxxxxx> wrote:
SG> Let's clear up the confusion. I made two mistakes, firstly by
SG> calling this "F/F semantics" when what I mean is some sort of
SG> long-line-aware reflowing and quoting. We'll have to find a name
SG> for it. The other mistake was to call plain text plain text of any
SG> description, irrespective of the definition of text/plain.
SG> So we are talking about three formats:
SG> * text/plain, 78 characters wide
SG> * format=flowed, text/plain with soft breaks signalled by trailing whitespace, 78 characters
SG> * text/paragraphs (or whatever), a completely different identity that violates the length limits
SG> Apple Mail and Microsoft use this text/paragraphs. It's not
Do you think it would be worth writing a specification for text/paragraphs?
Heuristically, it's not that hard to identify, and a small patch for
mailman would at least mark email as being in that format, so that at
least, IETF lists could have email that complies to some standard.
(Whether or not we then drop email that doesn't have a text/plain part
is a second conversation)
--
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
Attachment:
pgpTtaEwNgD7c.pgp
Description: PGP signature