Re: 10646, and all that

[Dana S Emery <de19@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>   Stop redefining it without any good reason.
>   
>   Ietf-822 have already spent "the voluminous traffic" on
>   its definition. Don't do it again just becauase you
>   haven't read it.

I was posed a Q which begged for an answer to "what I thought a charset was", I
provided that answer.

I didnt realise that I was being asked to participate in a debate about a formal
definition, but since I have leaped in, an interesting point is raised.

My definition is a natural one, and is one other readers may bring to the
document.  The MIME document had better be pretty carefull to stress the
differences, if it adopts an unnatural definition.

>   That is untolerable.

Unfortunate, maybe.  Untolerable?  That I should state my own opinion? 
 
--
dana s emery <de19@umail.umd.edu>