W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Is “fr, en; q=0.3” a valid Accept-Language value?

From: Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:23:55 +1300
Message-ID: <CAHkN8V_MN0LS1=Dh0Hcm7QW0MJ4+rRGy1vM5Um297cMtroUXOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Also, just in case anyone is interested, this is for a Ruby gem which
implements RFC compliant parsing of Accept* headers.

https://github.com/ioquatix/http-accept

On 30 October 2016 at 22:21, Samuel Williams
<space.ship.traveller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just as a follow up, I've been using other examples on that page as
> part of the unit tests.
>
> However, I am finding it hard to understand the final table:
>
> The media type quality factor associated with a given type is
> determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence that
> matches the type. For example,
>
>   Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.7, text/html;level=1,
>           text/html;level=2;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5
>
> would cause the following values to be associated:
>
> Media Type Quality Value
> text/html;level=1 q=1
> text/html q=0.7
> text/plain q=0.3
> image/jpeg q=0.5
> text/html;level=2 q=0.4
> text/html;level=3 q=0.7
>
> But I fail to see, for example, where image/jpeg comes from or, say,
> text/html;level=3 because they aren't listed in the given Accept:
> header. Is this a documentation bug?
>
>
> On 19 October 2016 at 23:20, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-19 12:03, Samuel Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks so much that is really helpful. I didn't know there was a new
>>> RFC, and I did look.. I couldn't find it.
>>
>>
>> The place to look is the RFC Editor's status page:
>>
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2016 09:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 30 October 2016 09:24:31 UTC