- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:17:33 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Hello Julian, > > 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? I think this would actually be a Bad Thing. Filtering and Lookup work very differently. > > - just stay point to Section 3.1 and leave it to the implementer? I think that's probably a the best choice. There are different purposes to the matching schemes. I tend to think that HTTP's requirements are most like what the Lookup algorithm provides. That is, you can (and must) return exactly one result for a given request. It also works most like the resource-and-localization mechanisms in programming languages and (some) Web infrastructure. While filtering can return "exactly one" result, it isn't always clear what you will get and it works less well when a wide variety of content is available with closely related language tags. On the other hand, there are implementations based on filtering (Basic Filtering *is* the algorithm in 2616) and these can be made to work. There are many applications where filtering is a good choice (this is especially true, for example, when aggregating content). So, although my personal preference would be to require Lookup, I don't think that choice can be the only one permitted. I would suggest some text, but want to see other's reactions first. Best Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Lab126 Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 16:18:22 UTC