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

Re: qvalue *

From: ryah dahl <ry@tinyclouds.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:52:04 +0200
Message-ID: <3ae7f4480808041352s856528n4d0c70377795af7@mail.gmail.com>
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?

Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 20:52:39 UTC

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