- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 16:28:05 -0500
- To: fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU
- Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>> which is contentious and does not represent current practice, as far >> as I can see. I've found sites that do UTF-8, Shift-JIS, EUC, etc. >> but have yet to find a site that does UCS-2; I've found a browser that >> does UCS-2 but it hardly represents a feature that is consistently >> implemented. > ... > > While I think this is an important point to deal with, I'd like to see > the HTTP/1.0 draft proceed without trying to untie this particular > knot. So, I would like to leave this out. I have come around to thinking that in the interest of wider interoperability, it might be good for HTTP to become strictly MIME compliant. I would prefer to leave contentious language out, and instead, punt it over to MIME. As someone noted, it might be worthwhile defining a new MIME type, (he suggested itext, though wtext (wide text) and btext (binary text) pring to mind as alternatives).
Received on Friday, 9 February 1996 13:32:48 UTC