RE: Adams, #84 (urgent, as I need to get a draft out).

What we wrote means just what he thinks it does, and we meant it that
way.


> > 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?