- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> again, what problem do we want to solve here?
>
> The problem of "*" or "*/*" or other Accept-* stars,
> where the implicit or explicit <qvalue> is not the
> smallest <qvalue> in the Accept-* list.
>
> Including the special cases *;q=0, *;q=1, and *.
Well, the text is quite explicit, the default qvalue is 1, so * = *;q=1
and *;q=0 should be equivalent to not having *.
The fact that most servers returns something when * is not present and a
406 when *;q=0 is just an implementation choice, driven by the text of
part 3 section 5.
> This is an issue in its own right, not limited to
> #113 and Accept-Language. It is a wildcard-qvalue
> issue. 2616bis should tell implementors what this
> means. If this is hopelessly non-interoperable the
> concept of Accept-* wildcards could be deprecated.
Can you point to a specific non-interoperable issue? The example you gave
didn't seem hopelessly broken.
--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.
~~Yves
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 12:54:13 UTC