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: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:49:21 +1300
Message-ID: <CAHkN8V_=C_eUsw6c6ZserP3fr573U=wCtzhV4EjyZL_DKf1Cpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Thanks Amos, yes, that's exactly how it works in the code. But thanks
for clarifying it.

The reason why I used the word computed is because it's not a direct
1-1 association. If you want to find the q value for image/jpeg, you
need to first see, is there image/jpeg? no. Is there image/*? no. Is
there */*? Yes. To me, this is a computation, not simply an
association.

On 31 October 2016 at 14:29, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> On 31/10/2016 12:15 a.m., Samuel Williams wrote:
>> Thanks Julian, yes I wondered if that was how it was being explained.
>> It might be the wording of the sentence preceding the table:
>>
>>> would cause the following values to be associated:
>>
>> It might be clearer if it were "could be used to compute the following
>> quality values:"
>>
>
> It is not computing quality values. The q values are provided by the
> client. It is simply associating those q= values with the possible
> response types.
>
> Like so:
> 1) take the request Accept list
> 2a) sort by q= value
> 2b) drop explicit types that cannot be produced (ie xml/tar)
> 3) output the response for type at the front of the list
>
>
> If you are writing a client to produce Accept lists, then you should do
> the sorting step when generating the request so as to get faster
> responses from the server.
>
> Amos
>
>
Received on Monday, 31 October 2016 01:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 31 October 2016 01:50:02 UTC