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

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:30:45 +0000
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <em144175d2-e44d-4209-b5a2-f2dbf14d99d4@bombed>


------ Original Message ------
From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
>+1.. in fact, for 2.0, I'd very much like to get rid of q-values 
>entirely and depend entirely on order.
>
same here.

The idea may have been laudable in 1998, but really, how can a web 
server tell if some resource is 80% better than another?  A human needs 
to tell it, and humans have enough trouble with other things.

the q=0 option would need to be turned into a Naccept-* header or 
something.   But does anyone even use it outside of testing for 406 
responses which never come?




>
>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 23:31:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 January 2013 23:31:44 GMT