- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 19:43:51 +1200
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Martin Duerst wrote: > Dear HTTP WG, > > This was brought up in the LTRU WG by Mark Davis: > > >> Unfortunately, the specs are ill-defined regarding the q values. Take the >following example: >> >> a, b;q=0.7, c, d;q=0.5, e, f;q=0.9, g >> >> The specs do not distinguish between at least two different possible >reasonable interpretations of what the q values of c, e, and g are: >> > * > c;q=1.0, e;q=1.0, g;q=1 // always 1 > * > c;q=0.7, e;q=0.5, g;q=0.9 // always same as previous > >> Our guess is that the user meant #2, but it is only a guess. >> > > I read RFC 2616, and indeed didn't find any specification of > the defaults for q values in the case of Accept-Language. > take another look at section 14.4, para 2. "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" > Looking at other subsections of Section 14, there is an explicit > default of q=1 for Accept and Accept-Charset, but I also didn't > find a default for Accept-Encoding. > > Please add this issue to your issue list unless you already > have it listed. > also the whole concept of q values only makes any sense if the default value is 1. > Regards, Martin. > > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp > > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 07:43:02 UTC