> Charsets are not to appear in mime type tags in URI/Alternates headers. > They ave their own slot. Holtman paper says (4.6 Alternates): The type, language, encoding, and length attributes of an alternate description refer to their Content-* header counterparts. Content-Type has charset for text/html entities (for iso-8859-1 it is implicit). Where is own slot for charset? As an extension postponed till HTTP/1.2? > If that is not sufficient, we now that we have Koen's method for reactive > negotiation, by which you will be able to precisely pick which varaint you > want, which might be useful if you recieve the the language you wanted, but > not the charset you wanted. (You recieve TheProject.ru.html, but you realize > there was also a TheProject.ru2.html, so you ask for it by name.) An example Accept-Language: ru, *;q=0 Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, koi8-r, unicode-1-1-utf8 Server has alternates with all charsets. By current papers all my alternates has the same quality factor. With what charset I would receive document, if any, with preemptive negotiation? In what order alternates will be present to user agent for reactive negotiation? Per drafts the order is significant, because the first alternate is the best one. Why not to have quality factor charset? Like this Accept-Language: ru, *;q=0 Accept-Charset: koi8-r, iso-8859-5;q=0.8; *;q=0Received on Friday, 1 March 1996 11:48:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:57 UTC