Implementing any new RFC is a big order. If the mail clients on both ends implement RFC 3676, then cut-and-paste works. If a brain dead application simply slaps in format=flowed without following the specifications in the RFC, then blame that application. Again, do you know of any problem when both ends actually adhere to the specifications?
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2018 4:35 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Formatting (was: JCL ERROR : IGD01022I) On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:39:02 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: >> I consider RFC 3676 an abomination, totally unsuitable for posting code >> samples. > >Why? Do you know of any case where a properly behaving mail client mangles >code properly formatted with format=flowed? > "properly formatted" is a big order. Before the infestation of format=flowed an author was able to copy-and-paste a code snippet into a message and the recipient could copy-and-paste and run it. Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit, now well supported removed one incentive to encode. RFC 822 mandated a 1000-character limit on line length, ample for coding. The feckless innovation of an 80-character limit impelled a new motive for encoding. In the message to which you're replying I experimented with UTF-8 text; long lines; 8bit. A surfeit of caution and timid adherence to Postel's rule has made things harder. Email shouldn't pretend to be a publishing tool. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
