Re: [Evolution-hackers] camel_header_unfold()
- From: Jules Colding <colding omesc com>
- To: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj novell com>
- Cc: Evolution Hackers <evolution-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] camel_header_unfold()
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:42:33 +0100
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:25 -0500, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > Might be nitpicking, but RFC 2822 says:
> > "The process of moving from this folded multiple-line representation
> > of a header field to its single line representation is called
> > "unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF
> > that is immediately followed by WSP. Each header field should be
> > treated in its unfolded form for further syntactic and semantic
> > evaluation."
> > So it appears to me that too much is being removed above. Shouldn't the
> > unfolding operation simply remove the CRLF and nothing else?
> if you wanted to get nitty gritty to the finer details of the spec,
> sure, but in reality it's much nicer to get rid of the extra whitespace
> many clients stick in there when folding.
Sigh... I see.
I guess I am a nitpicking kind of guy when it comes to standards, but I
see the need for recognizing that strangely nonconforming place called
"the real world".
> Often, mailers will folder "part1 part2" into "part1\n\tpart2" or "part1
> \n\t part2" or sometimes even "part1\n part2"
> Anyways, if we wanted to remove the unfolding niceness, we'd simply
> remove that inner loop and it'd be fixed.
Yes, but your reasons for keeping this behavior seems sound.
] [Thread Prev