Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Phillips, Addison wrote:
>> 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.
> ...


so I had a look at RFC 4647 and I'm totally open to allow more than 
Basic Filtering; but I'm not sure about what exactly we want to say...

- require to try Basic Filtering First, but allow to fall back to Lookup 
when nothing is returned?

- just stay point to Section 3.1 and leave it to the implementer?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 11:47:15 UTC