Jacob, You write (> ) in response to my earlier note (>> ):-
>> RFC 1738 describes how to encode URLs. Clearly, if we only encounter
>> in text/html objects that are RFC 1738 compliant we have no problem as
>> will also be RFC 822 header syntax compliant. The problem arises when we
>> encounter URLs that are not RFC 1738 compliant and which, therefore, may
>> not be RFC 822 header syntax compliant. This then is the case, and the
>> case, in which 2047 encoding is required.
>That is a little vague to write in a standard. I would prefer to say that
>all URLs which are not RFC 1738 compliant MUST be encoded with RFC 2047
>encoding. That is, that we should not specify our own definition of which
>character codes need and need not 2047 encoding.
I agree completely with your suggestion.