- From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:51:16 +0200
- To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Koen Holtman writes: > 10.2 Accept-Charset > > The Accept-Charset request-header field can be used to indicate what > character sets are acceptable for the response. This field allows > clients capable of understanding more comprehensive or > special-purpose character sets to signal that capability to a server > which is capable of representing documents in those character > sets. The US-ASCII character set can be assumed to be acceptable to > all user agents. > > | [##QUESTION TO BE RESOLVED: Apparently, the latest HTML spec says > | that iso-8859-1 can be assumed to be acceptable to all user agents. > | Should the above US-ASCII be changed to iso-8859-1?? There has > | been lots of discussion on the list, but I have not been able to > | detect a consensus opinion.##] My 2 cents: it soyld be iso-8859-1 that is the default, referring to previous discussion for that view. Another suggestion: there should be a quality parameter also with accept-charset, a q<1 meaning that the browser may be able to display in a less readable fashion, for example in mnemonic or 10646 fallback, or that it need to shift fonts or load a special programme to dispaly the charset or other impeded things. Keld
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 1996 12:55:49 UTC