W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

qvalue *, was: Issue 113

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:20:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4896ADAF.8020008@gmx.de>
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> again, what problem do we want to solve here?
> The problem of "*" or "*/*" or other Accept-* stars,
> where the implicit or explicit <qvalue> is not the
> smallest <qvalue> in the Accept-* list.

It's only a (potential) problem if clients send it. Do you have any 
evidence this happens in practice?

> Including the special cases *;q=0, *;q=1, and *. 
> This is an issue in its own right, not limited to
> #113 and Accept-Language.  It is a wildcard-qvalue
> issue.  2616bis should tell implementors what this
> means.  If this is hopelessly non-interoperable the
> concept of Accept-* wildcards could be deprecated.

The case where "*" has qvalue bigger than an other value in the list is 
an edge case. I don't see why a client ever would send it.

The handling of "*" is defined separately for each header. So we'd 
really have to restate whatever we want to say for each of them, or to 
restructure that stuff.

Not convinced.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 07:21:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:37 UTC