W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: Use of "Client" in 14.4

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:11:08 -0600
Message-ID: <459D6D6C.4040805@rowe-clan.net>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>
CC: "Travis Snoozy (Volt)" <a-travis@microsoft.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Paul Leach wrote:
> I don't think its worth making that change. 

Agreed.

> We need to be considerate of the people reading the updated spec and
> comparing it with the old one to see if they need to do anything. The
> diffs should be minimized, and since this one won't actually cause
> anyone to do anything to their code, it might just as well be omitted.

Moreso...

> A strict interpretation of this would mean that other non-user-agent 
> clients (e.g., proxies) "MUST NOT" give an Accept-Language header in
> their requests, because they can not (easily) give users a "choice of
> linguistic preference". That could lead to all sorts of silliness (e.g.,
> proxies stripping Accept-Language before forwarding) that very likely
> isn't intended.

Well, first off, you presume the spec replaces common sense of the authors
of said proxy, but worse...

> I propose the following fix:
> 
>   If the choice is not made available, then the Accept-Language header field
>   MUST NOT be given in the request.

not made available by ??...??  I presume you mean the end user of the proxy.

But if the proxy can discern a locale by, say, the regional IP assignment
of the end client, then that would be it's choice to 'fill in the gap' here.
Or a special purpose proxy could very well prefer a specific language family
based on it's anticipated user base.

I'd suggest we please leave the existing text alone and leave it to the
implementor to determine if and how Accept-Language should be presented.
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 21:11:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:00 GMT