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

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:50:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc6-3cyXFs6x2QiNhOUez=XORUHXsvxNppVu5H_03RWRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
+1.. in fact, for 2.0, I'd very much like to get rid of q-values entirely
and depend entirely on order.
On Jan 20, 2013 1:54 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> 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 22:51:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 January 2013 22:51:14 GMT