W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Accept-Language Support

From: Martin J. Duerst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:43:53 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Chris Wendt <christw@microsoft.com>
cc: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>, gwm <gwm@austin.ibm.com>, www-international <www-international@w3.org>, "joe.ross" <joe.ross@tivoli.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970721143811.245j-100000@enoshima>
I have recently written a rather long comment on the use
of "Accept-Language" and the exact mechanisms of language
negotaition/language variant selection in HTTP.

The "Note" I proposed to be added to the new version of the
HTTP 1.1 spec has been accepted by the HTTP 1.1 edit group.

I copy my comments here for the benefit of this discussion.
They are rather technical, but should cover the whole
problem quite adequately.

Regards,	Martin.


> From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Fri Jul 18 15:50:35 1997
> Return-Path: <http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
> Received: from hplb.hpl.hp.com by josef.ifi.unizh.ch with SMTP (PP) 
>           id <02267-0@josef.ifi.unizh.ch>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:50:23 +0200
> Received: from otter.hpl.hp.com by hplb; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:44:02 +0100
> Received: from cuckoo.hpl.hp.com by otter.hpl.hp.com 
>           with ESMTP (1.37.109.16/15.6+ISC) id AA206683433;
>           Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:43:53 +0100
> Received: (from procmail@localhost) by cuckoo.hpl.hp.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) 
>           id OAA20168; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:43:49 +0100 (BST)
> Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:43:49 +0100 (BST)
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 15:40:27 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
> Sender: mduerst@enoshima
> Reply-To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
> To: Maurizio Codogno <mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
> Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, 
>     http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: ISSUE: LANGUAGE-TAG
> In-Reply-To: <199701091459.PAA23947@beatles.cselt.stet.it>
> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970717115711.245O-100000@enoshima>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Resent-Message-Id: <"XRupi2.0.2x4.LCtpp"@cuckoo>
> Resent-From: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3805
> X-Loop: http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> Status: RO
> X-Status: 
> 
> I have been one of those originally discussing this issue,
> and I think I should take it up again after it has appeared
> on Larry's list.
> 
> The question is how the Accept-Language field is matched with
> the language information of the documents on the server. In
> particular, the question is what should be done in terms of
> prefix matching.
> 
> Language tags, as to RFC 1766, are strings separated into
> components with "-". RFC 1766 does not look at the individual
> components, but it is in general very convenient to consider
> the components and to do prefix matching.
> 
> To give an examlpe, the current situation is:
> 
> % Accept-Language      Document        Match?
> % 
> % en                   en              YES
> % en-us                en-us           YES
> % en                   en-us           YES
> % en-us                en              NO????
> % en-us                en-uk           NO!!!!
> 
> The NO!!!! in the last case is there because even though it
> would make sense to return an en-uk (GB English) document
> in request for en-us (US English) [of course if en-uk as
> such is not available], this never applies in general.
> For example, there could be x-klingon and x-martian, without
> any mutual intellegibility. There is zh-cn and zh-tw (mainland
> Chinese Chinese and Taiwanese Chinese, usually standing for
> simplified and traditional style Chinese), where some people
> wouldn't care getting either of these, but others would have
> difficulties understanding one or the other. Even for "en",
> we could have something like en-ebonics, not easily intellegible
> for an average "en" reader.
> 
> Once it is understood that we cannot match aa-bb with aa-cc,
> the question is whether we can do anything to improve the
> situation for getting a match between en-us and en, as marked
> with NO???? above. In an earlier mail, I proposed to solve
> this by just changing the spec to saying that this case
> matches. I found out in the meantime that this has some
> subtle undesired consequences. The story goes as follows:
> 
> We want to have a way to get en-uk back to an en-us reader
> (for this and similar cases, not for the general case).
> With the current spec, we know that it's the user side's
> responsibility to do something about it, i.e. to have
> 	Accept-Language: en-us, en
> maybe with the necessary q values.
> 
> Now if we add to the spec that en-us matches an en document,
> it could as well be the responsibility of the server side
> to tag the document both as en-uk and en, in order to get
> it send back on an en-us request. We don't know anymore
> who is responsible, which means that either both will do
> it (to make sure it works) or nobody will do it (because
> they hope for the other side). This is rather undesired :-(.
> 
> The current solution is better in that even if it doesn't
> do as much as possible automatically, it assigns clear
> responsibilities.
> 
> The question is whether the responsibilities are on the
> right side. In one respect, they are, because it's the
> reader who ultimately knows what she can (or wants to)
> read and what not. However, in another respect, it's on
> the wrong side, because the end user is not aware that
> she is responsible, or how she should take up her
> responsibility. As a consequence, she might have set up
> language preferences as en-us only, and then be very
> annoyed when she gets back a variant list saying:
> 
> 	The document is not available in US English
> 	as you requested, but it is available in the
> 	following languages:
> 
> 		English
> 
> 	Please click on the language in which you prefer
> 	to receive the document.
> 
> To change the spec and put the responsibility on the server
> side might have some advantages (server side generally has
> a little more expertise than user side), but also has
> disadvantages (because it assumes the server side knows what
> users with various prefeneces do understand and what they
> don't, which is difficult e.g. in the zh (Chinese) case).
> Its biggest disadvantage is of course that we would have
> to turn the spec upside down.
> 
> To avoid the annoying case above, the best thing that can
> be done is that browser implementors help users to get
> their choices right. For example, after a user selects
> en-us and fr-ca and hits OK, a little dialog could come
> up and ask:
> 
> 	You selected US English, but not general English.
> 	In order for the browser to obtain all documents
> 	readable to you, we suggest to add general English.
> 	Should we do that for you?	[YES] [NO] [CANCEL]
> 
> Another question that remains to me is that currently, the
> spec assumes that each document has assigned exactly one
> language-tag, and that there either is a match or there
> is none. On sophisticated servers with database background
> and so on, this could look vastly different. How is the
> spec supposed to be applied in such a case?
> 
> 
> I therefore propose the following:
> 
> - Leave the matching mechanism in the spec as is.
> - Add some comments to help avoid situations that are
> 	really annoying to end users.
> 
> 
> The current text is:
> 
> > 14.4 Accept-Language
> > 
> >    The Accept-Language request-header field is similar to Accept, but
> >    restricts the set of natural languages that are preferred as a
> >    response to the request.
> > 
> >           Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":"
> >                             1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
> > 
> >           language-range  = ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8ALPHA ) ) | "*" )
> > 
> >    Each language-range MAY be given an associated quality value which
> >    represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages
> >    specified by that range. The quality value defaults to "q=1". For
> >    example,
> > 
> >           Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7
> > 
> >    would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and
> >    other types of English." A language-range matches a language-tag if
> >    it exactly equals the tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix of the
> >    tag such that the first tag character following the prefix is "-".
> >    The special range "*", if present in the Accept-Language field,
> >    matches every tag not matched by any other range present in the
> >    Accept-Language field.
> > 
> >      Note: This use of a prefix matching rule does not imply that
> >      language tags are assigned to languages in such a way that it is
> >      always true that if a user understands a language with a certain
> >      tag, then this user will also understand all languages with tags
> >      for which this tag is a prefix. The prefix rule simply allows the
> >      use of prefix tags if this is the case.
> > 
> >    The language quality factor assigned to a language-tag by the
> >    Accept-Language field is the quality value of the longest language-
> >    range in the field that matches the language-tag. If no language-
> >    range in the field matches the tag, the language quality factor
> >    assigned is 0. If no Accept-Language header is present in the
> >    request, the server SHOULD assume that all languages are equally
> >    acceptable. If an Accept-Language header is present, then all
> >    languages which are assigned a quality factor greater than 0 are
> >    acceptable.
> > 
> >    It may be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send an
> >    Accept-Language header with the complete linguistic preferences of
> >    the user in every request. For a discussion of this issue, see
> >    section 15.7.
> > 
> >      Note: As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual
> >      user, it is recommended that client applications make the choice of
> >      linguistic preference available to the user. If the choice is not
> >      made available, then the Accept-Language header field must not be
> >      given in the request.
> 
> I propose to add another note at the end of Section 14.4:
> 
> >>>> START OF PROPOSED ADDITION
> Note: When making the choice of linguistic preference available to
> the user, implementors should take into account the fact that users
> are not familliar with the details of language matching as described
> above, and should provide appropriate guidance. As an examlpe, users
> may assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any kind
> of English document if British English is not available. A user
> agent may suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the best
> matching behaviour.
> <<<< END OF PROPOSED ADDITION
> 
> 
> I hope that giving the proposed addition in the form above is
> sufficient. Please inform me of whatever other action that
> might be necessary to move this ISSUE forward.
> 
> 
> Regards,	Martin.
Received on Monday, 21 July 1997 08:44:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:47 GMT