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

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:07:20 +0100
Message-ID: <50F910C8.5010200@gmx.de>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-18 09:46, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> ...
> ...
> I'm with Roy on this one. It's not adding any new requirement about
> interpretation, simply stating that the list is ordered, as is actually
> the case from most senders.
> There is no requirement added/removed about server interpretation so
> those servers implementing random selection out of the ordered set are
> still compliant. Those servers implementing ordered interpretation are
 > ...

They are? How so?

If the client sends

	Accept-Language: en, de

and the server returns German text, although English would have been 
available, is it still compliant?

> now compliant - where before with the list defined as un-ordered they
> would be non-compliant due to mis-interpreting an un-ordered list as
> ordered.

That doesn't make sense, sorry.

If the list ordering is defined to be irrelevant it's totally ok to pick 
the first match.

> ...
>> Right now they interoperate as specified by the spec. If we change the
>> spec, they do not anymore (or only some of the time).
> The new spec does not forbid random selection. Merely states that the
> client *wants* it to be interpreted non-randomly. Obeying that client
> preference is still optional.
> ...

Again, that doesn't make any sense at all.

If we say that the list is ordered by preference (in absence of 
qvalues), this implies that a recipient should pick the *first* matching 
language. If it does not, it's not interpreting the message as defined.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 09:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC