Olle Jarnefors | 11 Apr 14:11 1996

ISO-8859-10; registration of new charset values; error in MIME draft

(Replies to this messages should be directed to
ietf-types <at> uninett.no only.)

> quote from RFC 1521
: quote from draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-03.txt
% quote from ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/character-sets
/ quote from ISO/IEC 8859-10:1992(E)

RFC 1521 asks for IANA registration of values of the "charset"

> 7.1.1.     The charset parameter

>    An initial list of predefined character set names can be found at the
>    end of this section.  Additional character sets may be registered
>    with IANA, although the standardization of their use requires the
>    usual IESG [RFC-1340] review and approval.  Note that if the

> Appendix E -- IANA Registration Procedures

>    MIME has been carefully designed to have extensible mechanisms, and
>    it is expected that the set of content-type/subtype pairs and their
>    associated parameters will grow significantly with time.  Several
>    other MIME fields, notably character set names, access-type
>    parameters for the message/external-body type, and possibly even
>    Content-Transfer-Encoding values, are likely to have new values
>    defined over time.  In order to ensure that the set of such values is

No registration procedure for character sets is specified in
(Continue reading)

Ned Freed | 29 Apr 12:20 1996

Re: request from HTTP draft editors for charset registration element

> (I'm told this is the right list to comment on MIME registration
> procedures, e.g., draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-03.txt).

> In the course of preparing the HTTP 1.1 draft, we wanted to suggest
> some preferred names for charsets as registered by IANA.

The concept of a "primary name" whose use is preferred over any other
name has been part of the draft procedure for some time. I think this
meets your criteria for a preferred name.

> Right now, charsets are registered with many aliases. However, for use
> in HTTP, all of the aliases are really cumbersome. We would like
> senders to preferentially send

> 	ISO-8859-1

> instead of any of the other aliases for that charset.

> Is this a possibility?

See above -- I think it is already a done deal. (Unless someone objects,
of course.)

> Where is the revised charset registration specification, since it
> isn't in reg-03?

It has been submitted as an I-D and should be out shortly.

From masinter <at> parc.xerox.com Mon Apr 29 06:39:49 1996
(Continue reading)