Re: Making message/rfc822 boundaries visible

[Toby Speight <Toby.Speight@streapadair.freeserve.co.uk>]

Florian> Florian Weimer <URL:mailto:fw@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>

0> In article <87yad7ls79.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, Florian wrote:

Florian> François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>> It is true that in many cases, UTF-8 support would allow for a
>> single MIME part for everything, indeed.  In other cases, UTF-8
>> would not convey distinctions that Asian do want to make,

Florian> The main problem with Unicode was that in the official manual,
Florian> only Chinese glyphs were printed, which extremly annoyed some
Florian> Japanese people (who, on the other hand, are used to write
Florian> short Chinese citations in Japanese text using the Japanese
Florian> glyphs ;).

Shouldn't the Content-Language header be used to select the appropriate
glyphset?  (A longer quotation of course being in a separate part with
it's own MIME headers)

I'm not sure whether the Plane-14 language-tagging characters are a
help or a hindrance here.  They ought not to be used when there's an
external means of indicating language (MIME headers), but they would
help in the generic code-conversion that Emacs does all day.