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

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

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:04:40 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843BEE@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>

> 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>.

Thanks for this. I meant as an open issue. I scanned the list but didn't see this one.

> 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?

I responded in my response to John Cowan. I think I would want to reopen this issue. Compatibility is a Good Thing, but as I said, I think language negotiation has evolved somewhat and you could incorporate more of 4647 rather than strictly requiring Basic Filtering.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 20:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC