And the Atlanta decision was to move the charset specification from
the content-type header to the content-charset header.
Let's stick to that, folks!
I certainly agree that a separate header is better than mucking up
the syntax of Content-type. I think, and it appears that Nathaniel
Borenstein agrees with me, that the Content-charset proposal disrupts
the design of rfc-xxxx in pursuit of a will-o-the-wisp. However I
have given the argument my best shot and not changed anyone's
opinions or received any significant supporting comments. So I agree:
let's get on with it and get out a new, and hopefully final, version
of rfc-xxxx.
However I would like to hear from the Chair about the way this
decision was taken. I support the fact that if an argument is stalled
then let it be decided in a face to face meeting. However Ned's
message on Content-charset _after_ Atlanta was the first I, or I
think Nathaniel Borenstein, had heard of the arguments for this
change. I think we can reach good decisions by mixing slow e-mail
discussion with face to face meetings. Complete consensus on e-mail
is ideal. Proposals raised for the first time at ietf meetings need
to be treated with caution: not blindly written down as agreements.
Bob Smart (who is never likely to get to an IETF meeting)
"Hey Rocky watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat" -- Bullwinkle