- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:40:16 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > So, does anyone have an issue with making ordering significant when there's no qvalue for *all* headers that use qvalues? > > Roy, I'm interpreting your answer as "we don't do anything with this information today," but as per below I don't think this stops us from defining it that way. Sorry, I wasn't clear. There is no code out there today that would correspond to such a change. I don't like making changes to HTTP just for the sake of imaginary consistency of definitions. Making them for the sake of consistency with implementations is fine. If it is a choice, I'd rather remove the line from Accept-Language than introduce new (unproven) things to Accept. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 05:40:37 UTC