Re: Round 3: moving HTTP 1.0 to informational

>> 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).