- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 20:13:50 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Martin J. Duerst: > [...] >Assume we have a very sophisticated server, which knows a lot >about the documents it keeps or produces, and the languages >they are kept in. Assume some of this knowledge cannot be >expressed in one or more language tags attached to the >documents, including q values. > >The question then is whether such a server is allowed to >cheat, i.e. whether it is e.g. allowed to peek at the >Accept-Language header field sent in before it calculates >the language(s) and q values it assigns to a certain >document. Yes, it is allowed to cheat, but I would not call it cheating. The 1.1 spec prescribes how to assign a q value to a language tag using an Accept-Language header, i.e. there os only one legal way to compute q-of-en and q-of-ja for English and Japanese. However, the spec does not prescribe what you should do with these q-of-* values once you have computed them. There is no rule which prescribes that, whenever you have an English-Japanese bilingual document, jou must compute the overall quality of this document with the formulae max(q-of-en, q-of-ja) or (q-of-en + q-of-ja)/2 or whatever. HTTP leaves the selection of appropriate formulae up to the service author. In terms of your example below: >As an example, assume that a server has an English document, >as Japanese document, and an English-Japanese bilingual >document. The bilingual document is the source and contains >all text in the original, and therefore is the preferred >document. However, if a reader has only English in her >Accept-language header field, the English document should >be served, and so on. the correct formulae for the overall qualities of the documents would, I think, be something like English document: q-of-en * 0.8 Japanese document: q-of-ja * 0.8 Bilingual document: min(q-of-en,q-of-ja) (These are correct assuming that you always want to return the document with the highest overall quality.) >Regards, Martin. Koen.
Received on Monday, 21 July 1997 11:18:56 UTC