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

Re: Issue 113

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
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808040843140.23664@ubzre.j3.bet>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT