>Is it a good thing to have different defaults depending on the mode
>of
This is not a major problem. As Dan pointed out, MIME specifies an
encoding, rather than a character set. Besides, ISO-8859-1 is a
superset of US-ASCII.
>> The SGML declaration of the document is a function of the charset
>> parameter. If the charset parameter is US-ASCII or ISO-8859-1, the
>> SGML declaration in section 13@@ applies. Other charset parameter
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> values are reserved for future use.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This sentence needs to go, and be replaced by the former language that
>said that for other charsets, the SGML was to be minimally modified.
I agree that the sentence should be deleted, but I do not agree with
your last sentence. It should instead say that processing in the face
of other values is currently unspecified.
>> NOTE: A generalized convention for mapping charset parameter values
>> to SGML declarations is expected to be specified in a future
>> version of this specification.
>
>Good.
This should probably be reworded slightly to simply say that in a
future version, processing will be specified in the face of arbitrary
charset parameter values.
>..for documents encoded in ISO-8859-1. Documents encoded in other
>character sets should use an SGML declaration as close as possible to
>this one, in order to preserve SGML conformance.
Again, I don't think we can say this for 2.0, because current systems
simply ignore this whole can of worms.
-- I should note that my paper will be sent out for review today, and hopefully, I should be sending it to the list tomorrow or the day after. I think it offers a reasonable solution to the problems, but I do not see it as affecting 2.0 at all. My understanding is that 2.0 documents current practise, and that 2.1 will solve this, among other problems, like tables.