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

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

From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:59:18 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090718175918.GA3899@mercury.ccil.org>
Julian Reschke scripsit:

> 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?

No, basic filtering is the RFC 2616 algorithm all right.  You might
consider allowing HTTP servers to do lookup if basic filtering
produces no results: Apache already does this.

Is there some reason why you aren't referring to BCP 47?

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main.  If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  --John Donne
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 17:59:57 GMT

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