------ 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 UTC