Re: Content-Negotiation in check referer requests

Hello Etienne,

On 15-Jun-08, at 4:05 AM, Etienne Miret wrote:
> I promised you I’d send those patches two months ago. Sorry I didn’t  
> kept my word.

No problem, but it looks like we may have miscommunicated. My bad,  
really.

> This being said, why don’t you want to forward Accept-Charset ?

As mentioned in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2008Apr/0104.html 
  - I have nothing against accept-charset.

I had misunderstood you were adding "accept-encoding". Accept-Charset  
is fine by me, and indeed I already added some support into the  
validator a few months ago:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check.diff?r1=1.582&r2=1.583&f=h

> So, in case I convinced you, here is a patch wich forwards all 3  
> Accept, Accept-Language and Accept-Charset:
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=556
>
>> I got confused by the fact you used the
>> http_accept_language param for the templates, while the CGI uses the
>> accept_language param, etc. Would it be better to stay consistent  
>> here,
>> or was there a rationale behind the naming?
> I almost sure there was a rationale, but since I can’t remember it,  
> I changed this in the two aforementioned patches. The naming is now  
> more consistent.

Great. I will review the patch and apply it, unless I find any issue  
with it.

Thank you.

-- 
olivier

Received on Sunday, 15 June 2008 18:31:33 UTC