| Rfc | 2231 |
|---|
| Title | MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets,
Languages, and Continuations |
|---|
| Author | N. Freed, K. Moore |
|---|
| Date | November 1997 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Obsoletes | RFC2184 |
|---|
| Updates | RFC2045, RFC2047,
RFC2183 |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Network Working Group N. Freed
Request for Comments: 2231 Innosoft
Updates: 2045, 2047, 2183 K. Moore
Obsoletes: 2184 University of Tennessee
Category: Standards Track November 1997
MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word Extensions:
Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
1. Abstract
This memo defines extensions to the RFC 2045 media type and RFC 2183
disposition parameter value mechanisms to provide
(1) a means to specify parameter values in character sets
other than US-ASCII,
(2) to specify the language to be used should the value be
displayed, and
(3) a 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.
2. Introduction
The Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME [RFC-2045, RFC-
2046, RFC-2047, RFC-2048, RFC-2049], define a message format that
allows for:
(1) textual message bodies in character sets other than
US-ASCII,
(2) non-textual message bodies,
(3) multi-part message bodies, and
(4) textual 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:
(1) Lines in Internet email header fields are folded
according to RFC 822 folding rules. This makes long
parameter values problematic.
(2) 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.
(3) It has recently become clear that character set
information is not sufficient to properly display some
sorts of information -- language information is also
needed [RFC-2130]. 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.
2.1. Requirements notation
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 [RFC- 2119].
3. Parameter Value Continuations
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
(1) the mechanism MUST NOT change the syntax of MIME media
type and disposition lines, and
(2) the 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.
4. Parameter Value Character Set and Language Information
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.
4.1. Combining Character Set, Language, and Parameter Continuations
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:
(1) Language and character set information only appear at
the beginning of a given parameter value.
(2) Continuations do not provide a facility for using more
than one character set or language in the same
parameter value.
(3) A value presented using multiple continuations may
contain a mixture of encoded and unencoded segments.
(4) The first segment of a continuation MUST be encoded if
language and character set information are given.
(5) 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.
5. Language specification in Encoded Words
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>
6. IMAP4 Handling of Parameter Values
IMAP4 [RFC-2060] servers SHOULD decode parameter value continuations
when generating the BODY and BODYSTRUCTURE fetch attributes.
7. Modifications to MIME ABNF
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 [RFC-1766]>
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 "?="
8. Character sets which allow specification of language
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.
9. Security Considerations
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.
10. References
[RFC-822]
Crocker, D., "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet
Text Messages", STD 11, RFC 822 August 1982.
[RFC-1766]
Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.
[RFC-2045]
Freed, N., and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, December 1996.
[RFC-2046]
Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046,
December 1996.
[RFC-2047]
Moore, K., "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
Part Three: Representation of Non-ASCII Text in Internet
Message Headers", RFC 2047, December 1996.
[RFC-2048]
Freed, N., Klensin, J. and J. Postel, "Multipurpose
Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: MIME
Registration Procedures", RFC 2048, December 1996.
[RFC-2049]
Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and
Examples", RFC 2049, December 1996.
[RFC-2060]
Crispin, M., "Internet Message Access Protocol - Version
4rev1", RFC 2060, December 1996.
[RFC-2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC-2130]
Weider, C., Preston, C., Simonsen, K., Alvestrand, H.,
Atkinson, R., Crispin, M., and P. Svanberg, "Report from the
IAB Character Set Workshop", RFC 2130, April 1997.
[RFC-2183]
Troost, R., Dorner, S. and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header", RFC 2183, August 1997.
11. Authors' Addresses
Ned Freed
Innosoft International, Inc.
1050 Lakes Drive
West Covina, CA 91790
USA
Phone: +1 626 919 3600
Fax: +1 626 919 3614
EMail: ned.freed@innosoft.com
Keith Moore
Computer Science Dept.
University of Tennessee
107 Ayres Hall
Knoxville, TN 37996-1301
USA
EMail: moore@cs.utk.edu
12. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.