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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:17:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4A6211AC.3080707@gmx.de>
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
John Cowan wrote:
> 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?

The spec does refer to BCP 47: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07.html#RFC4647>.

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 18:18:05 GMT

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