W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: A broken browser

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:11:07 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199701091811.TAA00770@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Martin J. Duerst:
>
[...]
>I'll take these issues first. For Accept-Language, RFC2068 says
>explicitly what q=0 means:
[...]
>This clearly means that q=0 means NOT ACCEPTABLE. Whether this
>has to be interpreted as being a special case for Accept-Language,
>or an example of a general principle, is beyond my knowledge
>of the RFC and its creation process.

The q=0 for Accept-Language is to be interpreted as an example of a general
principle.  Earlier versions of the document (the 00 and 01 internet drafts I
believe) had a section which said that the server should give a `none
acceptable' error message if it only had variants with q=0.

[...]
>To give an example, we have the following situation:
>
>Accept-Language      Document        Match?
>language-range       language-tag
>
>en                   en              YES
>en-us                en-us           YES
>en                   en-us           YES
>en-us                en              NO?!
>en-us                en-uk           NO?!
>
>
>The idea is that Accept-Language defines language-ranges,
>whereas the documents will be tagged exactly. I don't know
>exactly how the group arrived at this asymmetry,

If I recall correctly, en-us does not match en-uk because it need not in
general be true that two languages tagged a-x and a-y are mutually
comprehensible.  I don't know if there are actual examples of such tags a-x
and a-y in the registry now, but there could be in future, and we wanted
HTTP to be prepared for that.

>Regards,	Martin.

Koen.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 1997 10:14:10 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:25 EDT