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

Re: A broken browser

From: Martin J. Duerst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:35:39 +0100 (MET)
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970109192944.245J-100000@enoshima>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2277
On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Koen Holtman wrote:

> Martin J. Duerst:

> >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.

Cases are generic prefixes such as "x-". To some extent, Chinese might
be a real example, because (sorry if the tags are wrong) zh-cn (Chinese
in China) is written with simplified ideographs, and zh-tw (Chinese in
Taiwan) is written with traditional ideographs. I therefore already
have excluded this case in one of my proposals. Anyway, this still
leaves the case

> >en-us                en              NO?!

Regards,	Martin.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 1997 10:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:19 UTC