W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: (ACCEPT*) Consensus

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:54:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199604151954.VAA17511@wsooti05.win.tue.nl>
To: Olle Jarnefors <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, ojarnef@admin.kth.se
Olle Jarnefors:
>
>Only some marginal comments.
>
>>   A language tag identifies a natural language spoken, written, or
>>   otherwise conveyed by human beings for communication of information to
>> | other human beings. Computer languages are explicitly excluded. HTTP
>
>I like this definition of the meaning of language tags. It's
>more general than that in RFC 1766

Yes. Note that the language tags discussion in the HTTP document
should not be interpreted to mean that HTTP allows more than RFC 1766
does.  The text is this broad to ensure that HTTP clients will not be
disallowed from using the language tags that a future revision of RFC
1766 may define.

[...]
>>   Whitespace is not allowed within the tag and all tags are
>>   case-insensitive.  The namespace of language tags is administered by
>>   the IANA. Example tags include:
>> 
>>          en, en-US, en-cockney, i-cherokee, x-pig-latin
>> 
>>   where any two-letter primary-tag is an ISO 639 language abbreviation
>>   and any two-letter initial subtag is an ISO 3166 country code.
>
>Please add a note to the effect that only "en" and "en-US" are
>legal language tags at the time of publication of the document,
>and that the other tags are included only to illustrate how
>language tags registered in the future may look.

Good idea, I'll try to come up with some text.

>
>>   It may be contrary to be privacy expectations of the user to send an
>>   Accept-Language header with the complete linguistic preferences of the
>>   user in every request. For a discussion of this issue, see Section
>> | 14.7.
>
>I suppose the second occurence of "be" on the first line should
>be removed.

Oops, that second `be' should be a `the'.

>Olle Jarnefors, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>

Koen.
Received on Monday, 15 April 1996 13:02:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:50 EDT