On 01/12/2015 06:25 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 20:57:26 -0700
Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com wrote:
To be clear, I think that assuming 1252 when there is no =encoding
line is a good idea. But I'm leery of overriding an actual =encoding
line.
Agreed.
I could
On Jan 12, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com wrote:
To be clear, I think that assuming 1252 when there is no =encoding
line is a good idea. But I'm leery of overriding an actual =encoding
line.
Agreed.
I’m okay with this.
I could possibly be persuaded, if
On 01/12/2015 12:37 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com wrote:
To be clear, I think that assuming 1252 when there is no =encoding
line is a good idea. But I'm leery of overriding an actual =encoding
line.
Agreed.
I’m okay with
On 01/12/2015 12:49 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jan 12, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com wrote:
I ran across this link, but didn't see what action was taken on it:
http://www.w3.org/TR/newline
Pardon my ignorance. Does that mean that `s/Latin-1/CP1252/g` could be
