On Monday 04 July 2016 01:52:41 Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * p...@cpan.org [2016-07-03T08:39:22]
> > On Friday 01 July 2016 02:51:31 Ricardo Signes wrote:
> > > What if we defined a role (here, just a well-known name) called
> > > Email::MIME::Header::Value, which is used to signal that a
> > > particular method, say "as_mime_header", should be used to
> > > stringify?
> > In this case, do we need role at all? Is not existence of method
> > "as_mime_header" enough?
> That method alone is fine with me.
> > And all this would be passed via header or header_str?
> I'd stick to header_str, I think, but I'm not sure. At any rate:
And this is what I do not like... to pass objects to function with name
header_str. That name sounds like it takes string, not object (or more
> > If address(), addrlist() and addrgroup() returns those objects
> > (with as_mime_header() method) it could be usable...
> > But I was thinking about using same syntax in Email::MIME for
> > passing addrlist/addrgroup as is in Email::Address::XS
> > format_email_addresses and format_email_groups functions.
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
Syntax/API of passing email groups to function format_email_groups from
Email::Address::XS module. E.g. to call format_email_groups and
Email::MIME functions with same syntax of objects/structures/arguments..
> > In my opinion folding and unfolding should be done in
> > Email::Simple. I'm not huge fan of adding folding and CRLF code
> > into Email::Address::XS as it has nothing to do with it. That
> > module parse and format one line of list of addresses.
> I agree. I think if we start with the API described above, and leave
> the folding for the message to perform, we'll be okay. We can
> certainly find out by writing the code!
> > > What do you think of this all?
> > Still do not know how to handle non-MIME headers correctly in
> > Email::MIME module. We can either create blacklist of non-MIME
> > headers and extend it every time when somebody report problem or
> > create whitelist of MIME headers... Or let caller to decide if his
> > header must be MIME-encoded or not.
> I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you elaborate?
If passed pair (header-name, header-value) needs to be MIME encoded or
not. Currently there is blacklist in Email::MIME for header names which
are never MIME encoded (like Message-Id, Date, ...) when passing as
> > Basically we need unambiguous way to specify:
> > * ascii string which will never be MIME-encoded (error for unicode
> > char)
> > * unicode string which will be MIME-encoded if contains
> > unicode char
> > * addresses/groups - but again with ability to
> > specify if do MIME-encode
> We have that, right?
> "header" is "already encoded", which is another way of saying "do not
> encode this."
> "header_str" is "text string" which means it will get encoded.
Not exactly, there are exceptions (Message-Id, Date, ...) plus special
behaviour for addresses headers.
> The address or groups thing falls under "object." I had assumed it
> would, itself, know how to become MIME encoded. This is important,
> because the semantics of what gets encoded differ per field type.
> So, as_mime_header is the encoded form. If you want to offer an
> unencoded form, as_string seems like the obvious method.
Addresses and groups are really something different as previous types
(strings). And if we threat them as objects, I would rather see e.g.
header_obj (or other different name) instead mixing it again with
header_str (which already have exceptions :-(). This is my initial
reason for header_addr/grps to distinguish it.