W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:18:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4A61F5C2.3050906@gmx.de>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Phillips, Addison wrote:
> ...
> One additional issue related to language tags (you don't appear to be tracking it separately). I don't think that the current incarnation of section 5.4 (Accept-Language) is quite right. In particular, the Basic Filtering algorithm is made normative as the language negotiation strategy. I tend to find the Lookup algorithm a better/more common choice, personally, and others might make different choices, depending on the application. I think this text should be made more dependent on the text in 4647, rather than trying to recreate it in a shorter form. If HTTP-WG feels that an algorithm must be made normative, then my personal opinion is that it should be Lookup, not Filtering.
> ...

Hi Addison,

actually we *do* track this separately; the issue is 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113>, and we thought 
we were done with it almost a year ago. See discussion around 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2008JulSep/0214.html>.

The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm that 
actually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember, we're 
not changing the protocol here). Did we pick the wrong one?

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 16:19:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:07 GMT