- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 02:35:57 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Mark Nottingham wrote: >Good point. > >how about: > >""" >A request without any Accept-Language header field implies that the user >agent will accept any language in response. If an Accept-Language header >field is present in a request and none of the available representations >for the response have a language tag that is listed as acceptable, the >origin server MAY either disregard the Accept header field by treating >the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation, or honor >the Accept header field by sending a 406 (Not Acceptable) response. >However, the latter is not encouraged, as doing so can prevent users >from accessing content that they might be able to use (with translation >software, for example). >""" Two cases of s/Accept/Accept-Language/. "MAY either ... or ..." is bad usage of RFC 2119 terms. And I don't like the implication that sending anything other than 406 is "not honoring" the Accept-Language header. But this is close enough to say "works for me". Thanks, -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 00:36:24 UTC