W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1997

Re: Question on Accept-Charset

From: <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 16:30:09 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199711261530.QAA26607@wsooti05.win.tue.nl>
To: Howard Melman <howard@silverstream.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, howard@silverstream.com, lwa@silverstream.com
Howard Melman:
>

Hi Howard,

>
>I have a question on how to treat ISO 8859-1 in
>Accept-Charset and didn't find it discussed in the
>archives. 
>
>> 14.2 Accept-Charset
>
>> The ISO-8859-1 character set can be assumed to be
>> acceptable to all user agents.
>>
>>        Accept-Charset = "Accept-Charset" ":"
>>                  1#( ( charset | "*" [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ]
>> )
>>
>> Character set values are described in section 3.4. Each
>> charset may be given an associated quality value which
>> represents the user's preference for that charset. The
>> default value is q=1. An example is
>>
>>        Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.8
>>
>> The special value "*", if present in the Accept-Charset
>> field, matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1)
>> which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset
>> field.    If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset field,
>> then all character sets not explicitly mentioned get a
>> quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, which gets a
>> quality value of 1 if not explicitly mentioned.
>
>If a server receives
>
>  Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, *;q=0
>
>is iso-8859-1 acceptable to the client?  What about:
>
>  Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, iso-8859-1;q=0
>
>In both cases I would assume it is not acceptable to the
>client, but this seems to contradict the first sentence above.

You are right. The first sentence above was left over from an earlier
edit, and should have had some kind of `by default' qualifier.

>If this is in fact the case, then I think the sentence
>
>> The ISO-8859-1 character set can be assumed to be
>> acceptable to all user agents.
>
>should be removed.  Given the last paragraph, which I find
>quite clear, this sentence only adds confusion.

I agree, this sencence should be removed.

>Howard

Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 1997 07:38:01 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:04 EDT