I agree with Ned that we're debating syntactic minutae where character
set specification is concerned. I admit that, as you perceived, I put
in content-charset as an attempt to forge a compromise between two
camps. If I were writing it exactly as I think it should be, I would
eliminate it in favor of an optional attribute-value notation for
application, binary, and image. I would leave character sets as the
subtype for text because I think that non-ASCII text is an extremely
widely-desired "special case" for which an extremely simple syntax
should be available. In short, I'm about 90% in agreement with you, but
would prefer to keep the charset subtypes of text. The question is,
WOULD THE ELIMINATION OF CONTENT-CHARSET BE A SHOWSTOPPER FOR ANYONE
ELSE?
I was quite astonished that the subtype for character sets were still
in the draft, and that the wording for content-charset was so vague.
This is not in line with Atanta desicions. I would very much like the
Atlanta decisions to stay in effect.
Also I find a lot of other problems in the new draft, but I will talk
directly to the authors first.
Keld