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

Issue 181, was: 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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4A6D9396.5020506@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:
>> 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.
> ...


so I had a look at RFC 4647 and I'm totally open to allow more than 
Basic Filtering; but I'm not sure about what exactly we want to say...

- require to try Basic Filtering First, but allow to fall back to Lookup 
when nothing is returned?

- just stay point to Section 3.1 and leave it to the implementer?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 11:47:15 UTC

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