W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Content-Negotiation in check referer requests

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:30:55 -0400
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <34490CED-3A9E-49E2-8EDF-0D39A47F0A93@w3.org>
To: Etienne Miret <etienne.miret@ens-lyon.fr>

Hello Etienne,

On 15-Jun-08, at 4:05 AM, Etienne Miret wrote:
> I promised you Iíd send those patches two months ago. Sorry I didnít  
> kept my word.

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

> This being said, why donít 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 canít 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:29 GMT