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

Re: qvalue *, was: Re: Issue 113

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:04:19 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1217887459.12221.65.camel@henriknordstrom.net>

On mån, 2008-08-04 at 20:07 +0200, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> * and utf-8 have the same <qvalue>, and one of the two
> can't be serious.  Either * should be actuallly 0.001
> (here: anything less than 1 and 0.7, but not 0), or
> utf-8 should be anything between 0.7 and 1, say 0.701

Yes, but where it the specification problem with this?

> I see a problem, the <qvalue> of * is not smaller than 
> all other non-zero <qvalue>s.  BTW, my IUT is an FF 2.

What problem?

For variants with the same qvalue the server is free to select one.

a;q=0.5, *;q=0.5

is really not any different in principle from

a;q=0.5, b;q=0.5

if available variants are 'a' or 'b'.

> I didn't test any other UA, but it is fairly simple to
> end up with a dubious <qvalue> for *, */*, or similar.

And where is the problem we need to address?

Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 22:05:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC