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

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:02:01 +0100
Message-ID: <51028249.90407@gmx.de>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-01-25 07:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-01-25 06:31, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> On 2013/01/25 8:37, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Removing the text does seem like the most expedient path forward.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't find it particularly satisfying; our job is to
>>> improve interop, and when there are latent semantics that aren't
>>> documented, we have to consider whether we're doing it well.
>>>
>>> I propose:
>>>
>>> """
>>> Note that some recipients treat language tags that have the same
>>> quality values (including when they are both missing) to be listed in
>>> descending order of priority. However, this behaviour cannot be relied
>>> upon, and if their relative priority is important, it ought to be
>>> communicated by using different quality values.
>>> """
>>>
>>> ... because I think it best captures where we're at.
>>
>> Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but it sounds to me that Julian is
>> insisting that it's okay to send arbitrary replies (e.g. once French,
>> once English at random) if there are no q-values. It has been very
>
> It is, according to the spec. If it hurts, don't do it (thus add qvalues).
>
>> clearly explained that this is highly confusing (in other words, bad for
>> interoperability). Even if the current spec allows this, it would be
>> good to have some text in the new spec that says that's a bad idea.
>
> We could also say that leaving the choice to the server might lead to
> different languages being picked in subsequent requests.
>
>> Otherwise, I'm fine with the above Note, except for a small nit:
>> Please change "including when they are both missing" to "including when
>> they are missing", because there may be more than two missing (or equal)
>> q-values.
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>
> Best regards, Julian

Proposed change: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/428/428.diff>.

This removes the new text about ordering, and adds the note below:

 >       Note: Some recipients treat language tags that have the same
 >       quality values (including when they are missing) to be listed in
 >       descending order of priority.  However, this behavior cannot be
 >       relied upon, and if their relative priority is important -- such
 >       as for consistent results for a sequence of requests -- it ought
 >       to be communicated by using different quality values.

Feedback appreciated, Julian
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 13:02:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 25 January 2013 13:02:42 GMT