RE: Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

> actually we *do* track this separately; the issue is
> <>, and we
> thought
> we were done with it almost a year ago. See discussion around
> <

> wg/2008JulSep/0214.html>.

Thanks for this. I meant as an open issue. I scanned the list but didn't see this one.

> The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm
> that
> actually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember,
> we're
> not changing the protocol here). Did we pick the wrong one?

I responded in my response to John Cowan. I think I would want to reopen this issue. Compatibility is a Good Thing, but as I said, I think language negotiation has evolved somewhat and you could incorporate more of 4647 rather than strictly requiring Basic Filtering.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

Received on Saturday, 18 July 2009 20:05:18 UTC