W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: #448, was: p2: Accept-Language missing, empty or no match

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:59:46 +0900
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C0094534-E0EF-418E-BE8B-0AD6ACE58EF7@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
WFM, although I note that we're not being very consistent in how we use language. (shrug)



On 10/06/2013, at 1:41 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> I agree with Björn's comment, but replacing the MAY by SHOULD doesn't seem to be an improvement.
> 
> The proposal in the ticket is:
> 
> "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 SHOULD either disregard the Accept-Language header field by treating the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation, or honor the Accept-Language 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)."
> 
> The SHOULD doesn't make sense unless there's something else the client could conceivably do.
> 
> Can we just make the "SHOULD" a "can"?
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-05-07 07:14, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Proposal updated in ticked and marked for -23.
>> 
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/448#comment:4>
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> 
>> On 01/05/2013, at 10:35 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> * 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/
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 01:00:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC