- From: ryah dahl <ry@tinyclouds.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:52:04 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>> But why ? If everybody does something else the wildcard >> can be simply deprecated. Or if desired fixed in some >> way, e.g., state that a wildcard <qvalue> greater or >> equal than the smallest non-zero <qvalue> elsewhere MUST >> be interpreted as *;q=0.001. Or SHOULD. Or something >> better than "dunno, who cares, toss a coin, get BOCU-1". > > Of course we can spend time on edge cases like these. > > But if we do, I'd prefer to talk about repeating Content-Length or > Content-Type headers first, because those may have security implications. Isn't the only use for q-value to give equal preference to several values? As far as I see it, the whole q-value topic is an edge case. I think it should be depreciated in favor of ordered lists. In the case where this might be meaningful, Accept-Language, UA do not give the ability of the user to specify something more detailed than an ordered list of perfered languages. Accept, Accept-Charset - who cares? Is an ordered list ever not enough? ry
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 20:52:39 UTC