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: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:56:10 +1100
Message-Id: <3B738275-3428-489C-B25D-CF1883D867B3@mnot.net>
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
What about reworking the text to turn it into a note about implementation behavior?

As an aside, looking at those sections again made it apparent we're re-specifying preference selection a number of times in the accept-* headers, each slightly different. 

I realise that they *are* slightly different, but it's not very apparent to readers; it reminds me of the repetition we got rid of in the caching section. 

Would it be possible to explain it once, reference it from each section, and then point out the differences?

Sent from my iPhone

On 24/01/2013, at 4:40 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> 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 05:56:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC