- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:11:30 +0100 (MET)
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Martin J. Duerst:
>
>[...] Anyway, this still
>leaves the case
>
>> >en-us en NO?!
The same principle applies here: it need not be in general true that xx is
mutually understandable with xx-aa. Even the prefix matching that _is_
allowed by 1.1:
Accept-L Content-L
en en-us
is skating thin ice: if a user agent sends xx, it has to know if there are
any languages tagged xx-aa that are not mutually understandable with xx, so
that it can send `Accept-Language: xx, xx-aa;q=0' if this is the case.
Note that the situation is not that bad in practice with the RFC1766
language tags. But additional language tagging schemes, with less nice
matching properties, could be defined in future, and we wanted HTTP to be
ready for that.
>Regards, Martin.
Koen.
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 1997 00:14:15 UTC