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

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:02:44 +1300
Message-ID: <50FA6134.3070405@treenet.co.nz>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@nickshanks.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19/01/2013 8:12 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
> sorry, missed that ;q=0.8
> ignore that comment about order pref

But your message is another great example of why stating order will 
improve interoperability.

The explicit statement that no q-value defaults to q=1, AND discussion 
about ordering by q-value leads many to interpret the old specs as the 
header being ordered exactly like you did there. Some large deployed 
implementations are doing this; correctly or not according to 2616.

Received on Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:03:15 UTC

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