-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for object representation of the header value #35
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
A look suggests that nothing should be passing anything to
maybe_mime_encode_header
other than the valueUTF-8
. If this is the case, I think we should eliminate the argument. Header objects that know how to encode their strings should be free to pick the appropriate encoding (which imho should either be ASCII or UTF-8 and nothing else), and shouldn't have to deal with someone asking for emoji to be encoded as KOI-8.Any reason to keep this argument?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still see email clients or email services which do not support UTF-8, only ISO-8859-1. IIRC RFC 2047 does not require implementation to really support UTF-8, but require some ISO-8859-1 encoding.
As we know that MIME encoder and decoder in core perl (via Encode package) was terrible broken for a long time I would rather have needed functions for other encodings available. Just in case somebody needs to deal with other encoding as UTF-8 (e.g. that ISO-8859-1).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, I'm sold. Let's reverse the argument order so that it's easier to give the header length and let the encoder pick an encoding, if the client doesn't care?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably
$header
and$header_length
are misleading here.$header
isfield name
(according to RFC2822) and$header_length
length offield name
+ 2 (for colon and space).Purpose of passing
$header_length
into encoder is ability to know how many octets are already print on first line beforefield body
. Encoder can use this information and optimize whole header to fil into less lines. But it is just optional... Email::Simple can wrap correctlyfield body
produced by encoder...Parameter
$header_length
is optional for encoder, it does not have to use it. So I put it as second argument.On the other hand, if
$charset
is passed, then encoder should use it and encodefield body
into that charset. Therefore I think$charset
is more "required" as$header_length
so I put$charset
before$header_length
.If you have other opinion or better idea for naming variables just propose it...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Alright. I'm not 💯 on either ordering, so I'll go with what you have and hope that nobody uses either one of those arguments. :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've changed the code to use named arguments and avoid the whole question of order.