>> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC