- From: Paul Leach <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 12:53:42 -0800
- To: "Travis Snoozy (Volt)" <a-travis@microsoft.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't think its worth making that change. We need to be considerate of the people reading the updated spec and comparing it with the old one to see if they need to do anything. The diffs should be minimized, and since this one won't actually cause anyone to do anything to their code, it might just as well be omitted. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Travis Snoozy (Volt) Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 12:26 PM To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: NEW ISSUE: Use of "Client" in 14.4 Section 14.4, page 105, reads as follows: 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. Note that *user agents* are really the only clients in the position to make this choice readily available to users. A strict interpretation of this would mean that other non-user-agent clients (e.g., proxies) "MUST NOT" give an Accept-Language header in their requests, because they can not (easily) give users a "choice of linguistic preference". That could lead to all sorts of silliness (e.g., proxies stripping Accept-Language before forwarding) that very likely isn't intended. I propose the following fix: As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is recommended that <del>client applications</del><ins>user agents</ins> 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. Thoughts? -- Travis
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 20:54:02 UTC