W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1998

Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 (Adams #84, Accept-Charset)

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:45:06 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199811171745.SAA23915@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: jg@pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Jim Gettys:
>
>
>Glen Adams notes:
>
>> 
>> 84. Section 14.2, pg. 93, 3rd para., is quite confusing: suggest
>> rewriting without using the term "mentioned". Also, this para. seems to
>> be stating that if any "iso-8859-1;q=1" is always implied unless
>> otherwise explicitly present. This means that:
>> 
>>     Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.9
>> 
>> really means
>> 
>>     Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1;q=1, iso-8859-5;q=1, unicode-1-1;q=0.9
>> 
>> (in which case 8859-1 would be given equal billing with 8859-5). And
>> that consequently the only way to exclude 8859-1 is to specify
>> 
>>     Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1;q=0, iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.9
>> 
>> Is this the intended usage? If so, I find this not only convoluted but
>> seriously sub-optimal. This emphasis on 8859-1 as default really is too
>> much. Why go so far overboard?
>
>Not being a charset wizard, I don't have a good feeling for whether
>any change is necessary.

I am not charset wizzard, but I play one on the net.  The current
language is correct, no change should be made.  It is this convoluted
for historical/compatibility reasons.

>	
>Comments?
>				- Jim

Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 17:47:44 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:25 EDT