Re: (ACCEPT*) Last call on draft text for Accept headers

Koen Holtman:
>Tim Greenwood:
[...]
>>The proposal was intended not as a simplification, but as a 
>>clarification. Your comment is correct, my proposal would have 
>>excluded a match that should be allowed. The text in 10.4 should 
>>still be rewritten to use the syntax defined in 3.10. The current 
>>text uses the term 'a prefix' which is not defined. 
>
>Ah, so _that_ is the problem.  I assumed that 'prefix' was standard
>computing terminology, but apparantly it is not.  (Prefix means
>"initial part of a string".)  I'll see if I can find an alternative
>wording.

OK, here is what I have come up with:  the old sentence

   A language-range matches a language-tag if it exactly equals the tag,
   or if it is a prefix of the tag such that the first tag character
   following the prefix is "-".

is replaced with

   A language-range matches a language-tag if it exactly equals the
   tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix (a sub-sequence starting at
   the first character) of the tag such that the first tag character
   following the prefix is "-".

I also tried to write text which completely avoided the use of the
word `prefix', but that text turned out to be less intelligible.

I will assume that this change solves the problem until I hear
otherwise.

On a related note: I'm currently also working with Jim Gettys to
simplify a few sentences in the proposed Accept header draft text.  I
will post a revised version once we are finished.

Koen.