- From: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:30:42 -0800
- To: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
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
Received on Monday, 16 November 1998 11:34:10 UTC