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

Re: Issue 187 (Warn header (P6) vs RFC2047 encoding)

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 18:56:37 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1249491397.9117.20.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
ons 2009-08-05 klockan 15:49 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > Tracking in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/187>
> 
> We have discussed this face-to-face last week, and I think there was 
> agreement that RFC 2047 in Warning headers is not implemented anywhere, 
> and thus we should remove it from the spec.

Not implemented anywhere, and further that if useragents actually start
displaying the warnings then they will most likely display their own
explanations in the users locale based on the error number, with the
error message more of a diagnostic message on the same level as the
reason phrase in the status line.


>     The warn-text SHOULD be in a natural language that is most likely to
>     be intelligible to the human user receiving the response.  This
>     decision can be based on any available knowledge, such as the
>     location of the cache or user, the Accept-Language field in a
>     request, the Content-Language field in a response, etc.  The default
>     language is English.

I would even go as far as drop the language reference, using text
similar to what we have for Reason-Phrase:

        The warn-text is intended to give a short textual description of
        the warn-code. The warn-code is intended for use by automata and
        the warn-text is intended for the human user. The client is not
        required to examine the warn-text.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 16:57:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT