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: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:51:40 +1100
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>

On 20/01/2013, at 11:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Jan 19, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> I am pretty sure it is specific to languages.  Accept has never been
> treated as an ordered list, Accept-Encoding was originally designed
> to prefer the smallest representation (changing that to qvalues was
> unfortunate), and Accept-Charset is almost deprecated at this point.


So, wouldn't the same arguments (minus the implementation status) apply to Accept?

I.e., if it's just a preference, and the server is free to choose among the preferences anyway (or even ignore them), why *not* say Accept is ordered?




--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2013 21:52:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 January 2013 21:52:12 GMT