Re: Comments (Part 2) on HTTP I-D Rev 05 (Adams #84, Accept-Charset)
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:45:06 +0100 (MET)
Jim Gettys:
>
>
>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.
I am not charset wizzard, but I play one on the net. The current
language is correct, no change should be made. It is this convoluted
for historical/compatibility reasons.
>
>Comments?
> - Jim
Koen.