MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and ContinuationsInnosoft International, Inc.1050 Lakes DriveWest CovinaCA 91790USA+1 626 919 3600+1 626 919 3614ned.freed@innosoft.comUniversity of TennesseeComputer Science Dept.107 Ayres HallKnoxvilleTN 37996-1301USAmoore@cs.utk.edu
Applications
MIMEcharacter encodingmedia typemultipurpose internet mail extensions
This memo defines extensions to the RFC 2045 media type and RFC 2183
disposition parameter value mechanisms to provide
a means to specify parameter values in character sets
other than US-ASCII,to specify the language to be used should the value be
displayed, anda continuation mechanism for long parameter values to
avoid problems with header line wrapping.
This memo also defines an extension to the encoded words defined in
RFC 2047 to allow the specification of the language to be used for
display as well as the character set.
The Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME [RFC-2045, RFC-2046,
RFC-2047, RFC-2048, RFC-2049], define a message format that
allows for:
textual message bodies in character sets other than
US-ASCII,non-textual message bodies,multi-part message bodies, andtextual header information in character sets other than
US-ASCII.
MIME is now widely deployed and is used by a variety of Internet
protocols, including, of course, Internet email. However, MIME’s
success has resulted in the need for additional mechanisms that were
not provided in the original protocol specification.
In particular, existing MIME mechanisms provide for named media type
(content-type field) parameters as well as named disposition
(content-disposition field). A MIME media type may specify any
number of parameters associated with all of its subtypes, and any
specific subtype may specify additional parameters for its own use. A
MIME disposition value may specify any number of associated
parameters, the most important of which is probably the attachment
disposition’s filename parameter.
These parameter names and values end up appearing in the content-type
and content-disposition header fields in Internet email. This
inherently imposes three crucial limitations:
Lines in Internet email header fields are folded
according to RFC 822 folding rules. This makes long
parameter values problematic.MIME headers, like the RFC 822 headers they often
appear in, are limited to 7bit US-ASCII, and the
encoded-word mechanisms of RFC 2047 are not available
to parameter values. This makes it impossible to have
parameter values in character sets other than US-ASCII
without specifying some sort of private per-parameter
encoding.It has recently become clear that character set
information is not sufficient to properly display some
sorts of information — language information is also
needed . For example, support for
handicapped users may require reading text string
aloud. The language the text is written in is needed
for this to be done correctly. Some parameter values
may need to be displayed, hence there is a need to
allow for the inclusion of language information.
The last problem on this list is also an issue for the encoded words
defined by RFC 2047, as encoded words are intended primarily for
display purposes.
This document defines extensions that address all of these
limitations. All of these extensions are implemented in a fashion
that is completely compatible at a syntactic level with existing MIME
implementations. In addition, the extensions are designed to have as
little impact as possible on existing uses of MIME.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These mechanisms end up being somewhat gibbous when
they actually are used. As such, these mechanisms should not be used
lightly; they should be reserved for situations where a real need for
them exists.
This document occasionally uses terms that appear in capital letters.
When the terms “MUST”, “SHOULD”, “MUST NOT”, “SHOULD NOT”, and “MAY”
appear capitalized, they are being used to indicate particular
requirements of this specification. A discussion of the meanings of
these terms appears in .
Long MIME media type or disposition parameter values do not interact
well with header line wrapping conventions. In particular, proper
header line wrapping depends on there being places where linear
whitespace (LWSP) is allowed, which may or may not be present in a
parameter value, and even if present may not be recognizable as such
since specific knowledge of parameter value syntax may not be
available to the agent doing the line wrapping. The result is that
long parameter values may end up getting truncated or otherwise
damaged by incorrect line wrapping implementations.
A mechanism is therefore needed to break up parameter values into
smaller units that are amenable to line wrapping. Any such mechanism
MUST be compatible with existing MIME processors. This means that
the mechanism MUST NOT change the syntax of MIME media
type and disposition lines, andthe mechanism MUST NOT depend on parameter ordering
since MIME states that parameters are not order
sensitive. Note that while MIME does prohibit
modification of MIME headers during transport, it is
still possible that parameters will be reordered when
user agent level processing is done.
The obvious solution, then, is to use multiple parameters to contain
a single parameter value and to use some kind of distinguished name
to indicate when this is being done. And this obvious solution is
exactly what is specified here: The asterisk character (“*”) followed
by a decimal count is employed to indicate that multiple parameters
are being used to encapsulate a single parameter value. The count
starts at 0 and increments by 1 for each subsequent section of the
parameter value. Decimal values are used and neither leading zeroes
nor gaps in the sequence are allowed.
The original parameter value is recovered by concatenating the
various sections of the parameter, in order. For example, the
content-type field
Content-Type: message/external-body; access-type=URL;
URL*0=”ftp://”;
URL*1=”cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/bulk-mailer/bulk-mailer.tar”
is semantically identical to
Content-Type: message/external-body; access-type=URL;
URL=”ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/moore/bulk-mailer/bulk-mailer.tar”
Note that quotes around parameter values are part of the value
syntax; they are NOT part of the value itself. Furthermore, it is
explicitly permitted to have a mixture of quoted and unquoted
continuation fields.
Some parameter values may need to be qualified with character set or
language information. It is clear that a distinguished parameter
name is needed to identify when this information is present along
with a specific syntax for the information in the value itself. In
addition, a lightweight encoding mechanism is needed to accommodate 8
bit information in parameter values.
Asterisks (“*”) are reused to provide the indicator that language and
character set information is present and encoding is being used. A
single quote (“‘”) is used to delimit the character set and language
information at the beginning of the parameter value. Percent signs
(“%”) are used as the encoding flag, which agrees with RFC 2047.
Specifically, an asterisk at the end of a parameter name acts as an
indicator that character set and language information may appear at
the beginning of the parameter value. A single quote is used to
separate the character set, language, and actual value information in
the parameter value string, and an percent sign is used to flag
octets encoded in hexadecimal. For example:
Content-Type: application/x-stuff;
title*=us-ascii’en-us’This%20is%20%2A%2A%2Afun%2A%2A%2A
Note that it is perfectly permissible to leave either the character
set or language field blank. Note also that the single quote
delimiters MUST be present even when one of the field values is
omitted. This is done when either character set, language, or both
are not relevant to the parameter value at hand. This MUST NOT be
done in order to indicate a default character set or language —
parameter field definitions MUST NOT assign a default character set
or language.
Character set and language information may be combined with the
parameter continuation mechanism. For example:
Content-Type: application/x-stuff
title*0*=us-ascii’en’This%20is%20even%20more%20
title*1*=%2A%2A%2Afun%2A%2A%2A%20
title*2=”isn’t it!”
Note that:
Language and character set information only appear at
the beginning of a given parameter value.Continuations do not provide a facility for using more
than one character set or language in the same
parameter value.A value presented using multiple continuations may
contain a mixture of encoded and unencoded segments.The first segment of a continuation MUST be encoded if
language and character set information are given.If the first segment of a continued parameter value is
encoded the language and character set field delimiters
MUST be present even when the fields are left blank.RFC 2047 provides support for non-US-ASCII character sets in RFC 822
message header comments, phrases, and any unstructured text field.
This is done by defining an encoded word construct which can appear
in any of these places. Given that these are fields intended for
display, it is sometimes necessary to associate language information
with encoded words as well as just the character set. This
specification extends the definition of an encoded word to allow the
inclusion of such information. This is simply done by suffixing the
character set specification with an asterisk followed by the language
tag. For example:
From: =?US-ASCII*EN?Q?Keith_Moore?= <moore@cs.utk.edu>
IMAP4 servers SHOULD decode parameter value continuations
when generating the BODY and BODYSTRUCTURE fetch attributes.
The ABNF for MIME parameter values given in RFC 2045 is:
parameter := attribute “=” value
attribute := token
; Matching of attributes
; is ALWAYS case-insensitive.
This specification changes this ABNF to:
parameter := regular-parameter / extended-parameter
regular-parameter := regular-parameter-name “=” value
regular-parameter-name := attribute [section]
attribute := 1*attribute-char
attribute-char := <any (US-ASCII) CHAR except SPACE, CTLs,
“*”, “‘”, “%”, or tspecials>
section := initial-section / other-sections
initial-section := “*0”
other-sections := “*” (“1” / “2” / “3” / “4” / “5” /
“6” / “7” / “8” / “9”) *DIGIT)
extended-parameter := (extended-initial-name “=”
extended-value) /
(extended-other-names “=”
extended-other-values)
extended-initial-name := attribute [initial-section] “*”
extended-other-names := attribute other-sections “*”
extended-initial-value := [charset] “‘” [language] “‘”
extended-other-values
extended-other-values := *(ext-octet / attribute-char)
ext-octet := “%” 2(DIGIT / “A” / “B” / “C” / “D” / “E” / “F”)
charset := <registered character set name>
language := <registered language tag >
The ABNF given in RFC 2047 for encoded-words is:
encoded-word := “=?” charset “?” encoding “?” encoded-text “?=”
This specification changes this ABNF to:
encoded-word := “=?” charset [“*” language] “?” encoded-text “?=”
In the future it is likely that some character sets will provide
facilities for inline language labeling. Such facilities are
inherently more flexible than those defined here as they allow for
language switching in the middle of a string.
If and when such facilities are developed they SHOULD be used in
preference to the language labeling facilities specified here. Note
that all the mechanisms defined here allow for the omission of
language labels so as to be able to accommodate this possible future
usage.
This RFC does not discuss security issues and is not believed to
raise any security issues not already endemic in electronic mail and
present in fully conforming implementations of MIME.
Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messagesUniversity of Delaware, Dept. of Electrical EngineeringDCrocker@UDel-RelayTags for the Identification of LanguagesUNINETTHarald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.noMultipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message BodiesInnosoft International, Inc.1050 East Garvey Avenue SouthWest CovinaCA91790US+1 818 919 3600+1 818 919 3614ned@innosoft.comFirst Virtual Holdings25 Washington AvenueMorristownNJ07960US+1 201 540 8967+1 201 993 3032nsb@nsb.fv.comMultipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media TypesInnosoft International, Inc.1050 East Garvey Avenue SouthWest CovinaCA91790US+1 818 919 3600+1 818 919 3614ned@innosoft.comFirst Virtual Holdings25 Washington AvenueMorristownNJ07960US+1 201 540 8967+1 201 993 3032nsb@nsb.fv.comMIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII TextUniversity of Tennessee107 Ayres HallKnoxville TN 37996-1301moore@cs.utk.edu
Applications
Amercian Standard Code for Information Interchangemailmultipurpose internet mail extensionsMultipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration ProceduresInnosoft International, Inc.1050 East Garvey Avenue SouthWest CovinaCA 91790USA+1 818 919 3600+1 818 919 3614ned@innosoft.comMCI2100 Reston ParkwayRestonVA 22091+1 703 715-7361+1 703 715-7436klensin@mci.netUSC/Information Sciences Institute4676 Admiralty WayMarina del ReyCA 90292USA+1 310 822 1511+1 310 823 6714Postel@ISI.EDU
Applications
mailmedia typemultipurpose internet mail extensionsMultipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and ExamplesInnosoft International, Inc.1050 East Garvey Avenue SouthWest CovinaCA 91790USA+1 818 919 3600+1 818 919 3614ned@innosoft.comFirst Virtual Holdings25 Washington AvenueMorristownNJ 07960USA+1 201 540 8967+1 201 993 3032nsb@nsb.fv.com
Applications
mailmultipurpose internet mail extensionsInternet Message Access Protocol – Version 4rev1University of Washington, Networks and Distributed Computing4545 15th Aveneue NESeattleWA98105-4527US+1 206 543 5762MRC@CAC.Washington.EDUKey words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsHarvard Universitysob@harvard.edu
General
keywordThe Report of the IAB Character Set Workshop held 29 February – 1 March, 1996Microsoft Corp.1 Microsoft WayRedmondWA 98052USAcweider@microsoft.comPreston & LynchPO Box 8310EmeryvilleCA 94662USAcecilia@well.comDKUUGFreubjergvey 3DK-2100 Kxbenhavn XDanmarkKeld@dkuug.dkUNINETTP.O.Box 6883 ElgeseterN-7002 TRONDHEIMNORWAYHarald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.nocisco Systems170 West Tasman DriveSan JoseCA 95134-1706USArja@cisco.comNetworks & Distributed ComputingUniversity of Washington4545 15th AvenueSeattleWA 98105-4527USAmrc@cac.washington.eduDept. of Numberical Analysis and Computing Science (Nada)Royal Institute of TechnologySE-100 44 STOCKHOLMSWEDENpsv@nada.kth.se
Applications
Communicating Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Content-Disposition Header FieldNew Century Systems324 East 41st Street #804New YorkNY10017USA+1 (212) 557-2050+1 (212) 557-2049rens@century.comQUALCOMM Incorporated6455 Lusk BoulevardSan DiegoCA 92121USAsdorner@qualcomm.comDepartment of Computer ScienceUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville107 Ayres HallKnoxville TN 37996-1301USA+1 (423) 974-5067+1 (423) 974-8296moore@cs.utk.edu
Applications
MIMEinternet messagemultipurpose internet mail extensions