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

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:34:39 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Julian et al,

I think the important bit here is the context that we're talking about the semantics of an expressed preference -- which can be freely ignored, or selectively applied, without affecting conformance. The important thing is that the preference itself have clear semantics, which I think Roy's change does (especially in concert with changes elsewhere).

As such, I think the relevant question is whether this is specific to A-L, or all A-* that take qvalues. Roy, thoughts?



On 17/01/2013, at 2:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2119#file1>, the spec now says:
> 
> "If no quality values are assigned or multiple language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages are listed in descending order of priority."
> 
> This is a change from both RFC 2068 and RFC 2616 which we *did* discuss back in the thread starting with <‚Äč http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011OctDec/0223.html>; back then we decided not to make this change because we know of implementations ignoring the ordering, and no convincing argument was given for making the ordering significant.
> 
> I believe this change should be backed out.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2013 02:35:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 January 2013 02:35:10 GMT