Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 (Adams #84, Accept-Charset)

Glen Adams notes:

> 
> 84. Section 14.2, pg. 93, 3rd para., is quite confusing: suggest
> rewriting without using the term "mentioned". Also, this para. seems to
> be stating that if any "iso-8859-1;q=1" is always implied unless
> otherwise explicitly present. This means that:
> 
>     Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.9
> 
> really means
> 
>     Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1;q=1, iso-8859-5;q=1, unicode-1-1;q=0.9
> 
> (in which case 8859-1 would be given equal billing with 8859-5). And
> that consequently the only way to exclude 8859-1 is to specify
> 
>     Accept-Charset: iso-8859-1;q=0, iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.9
> 
> Is this the intended usage? If so, I find this not only convoluted but
> seriously sub-optimal. This emphasis on 8859-1 as default really is too
> much. Why go so far overboard?

Not being a charset wizard, I don't have a good feeling for whether
any change is necessary.
	
Comments?
				- Jim