[Ietf-calsify] Character set restriction in section 4.3.11 Text
alexey.melnikov at isode.com
Thu Aug 24 05:12:31 PDT 2006
Mark Crispin wrote:
> Well, then, which is more important; having calendar fall back to
> TEXT/PLAIN behavior (in which case you need CHARSET), or having
> calendar objects be required to be UTF-8?
> Another thing that you could do is that TEXT/CALENDAR could require
> that ;CHARSET=UTF-8 be present as a parameter.
I think this is the best way.
> Declare that a TEXT/CALENDAR which omits CHARSET, or has any charset
> other than UTF-8, is undefined and not to be interpreted according to
> the calendar specification.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are not covered by the calendar
For example I find nothing wrong with a calendar that is entirely in
US-ASCII and has to CHARSET parameter.
> By the way, all of these are to be treated as random ideas. I'm not
> pushing for any of this as a solution, although I believe that it
> would be highly desirable to prevent any new application from getting
> into the multi-charset business.
More information about the Ietf-calsify