W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Issue 113, was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 22:43:04 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g6vsej$5es$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschk wrote:

[...] 
>> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>> ...
>>> RFC 4647 defines a basic language range in sec. 2.1
[...]

> Proposed text:
[...]

Fine.

> Each language-range MAY be given an associated quality value which
> represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages

Optionally s/MAY/can/.  The syntax has it clear that "q=" <qvalue>
can be omitted.

Do you have a special reason to write "q" "=" instead of "q=" ?
Is this a place where you actually want some kind of *WSP "=" *WSP ?

> would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and
> other types of English."

Maybe note that this list is not supposed to be sorted by <qvalue>s.

> The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field,
> matches every tag not matched by any other range present in the
> Accept-Language field.

Better add an example here, where the <qvalue> of "*" is not the
smalles in the list.  That is a pathological case, you'd get get
an "anything is better than something" effect:

   Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7, *;q=0.75

What does this mean if only "en" and "es" content is available ?

> I also note that "Basic Filtering" is case-insensitive, which it
> wasn't in RFC2616.

 [RFC 2616 page 29]
| all tags are case-insensitive

Nothing new here, IMO.

 Frank
Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 20:42:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT