- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:45:06 +0100 (MET)
- To: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- 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 09:52:26 UTC