Re: Question on Accept-Charset

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Larry Masinter: "Agenda for WEBPRIV BOF, Mon Dec 8 1930-2200"
• Previous message: Life is hard... and then you die.: "Authorization draft: Authentication-Info syntax"
• In reply to: Howard Melman: "Question on Accept-Charset"

Howard Melman:
>

Hi Howard,

>
>I have a question on how to treat ISO 8859-1 in
>Accept-Charset and didn't find it discussed in the
>archives. 
>
>> 14.2 Accept-Charset
>
>> The ISO-8859-1 character set can be assumed to be
>> acceptable to all user agents.
>>
>>        Accept-Charset = "Accept-Charset" ":"
>>                  1#( ( charset | "*" [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ]
>> )
>>
>> Character set values are described in section 3.4. Each
>> charset may be given an associated quality value which
>> represents the user's preference for that charset. The
>> default value is q=1. An example is
>>
>>        Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, unicode-1-1;q=0.8
>>
>> The special value "*", if present in the Accept-Charset
>> field, matches every character set (including ISO-8859-1)
>> which is not mentioned elsewhere in the Accept-Charset
>> field.    If no "*" is present in an Accept-Charset field,
>> then all character sets not explicitly mentioned get a
>> quality value of 0, except for ISO-8859-1, which gets a
>> quality value of 1 if not explicitly mentioned.
>
>If a server receives
>
>  Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, *;q=0
>
>is iso-8859-1 acceptable to the client?  What about:
>
>  Accept-Charset: iso-8859-5, iso-8859-1;q=0
>
>In both cases I would assume it is not acceptable to the
>client, but this seems to contradict the first sentence above.

You are right. The first sentence above was left over from an earlier
edit, and should have had some kind of `by default' qualifier.

>If this is in fact the case, then I think the sentence
>
>> The ISO-8859-1 character set can be assumed to be
>> acceptable to all user agents.
>
>should be removed.  Given the last paragraph, which I find
>quite clear, this sentence only adds confusion.

I agree, this sencence should be removed.

>Howard

Koen.

• Next message: Larry Masinter: "Agenda for WEBPRIV BOF, Mon Dec 8 1930-2200"
• Previous message: Life is hard... and then you die.: "Authorization draft: Authentication-Info syntax"
• In reply to: Howard Melman: "Question on Accept-Charset"