- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:41:36 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I ran across this in a discussion, and went to check it up; it might need fixing. At the moment, section 6.4 of draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-17.txt says: 6.4. Accept-Language The "Accept-Language" header field can be used by user agents to indicate the set of natural languages that are preferred in the response. Language tags are defined in Section 2.4. Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue ] ) language-range = <language-range, defined in [RFC4647], Section 2.1> Each language-range can be given an associated quality value which represents an estimate of the user's preference for the languages specified by that range. Way back in ancient history, when I wrote RFC 3282, I inserted the following clarification: The syntax and semantics of language-range is defined in [TAGS]. The Accept-Language header may list several language-ranges in a comma- separated list, and each may include a quality value Q. If no Q values are given, the language-ranges are given in priority order, with the leftmost language-range being the most preferred language; this is an extension to the HTTP/1.1 rules, but matches current practice. If Q values are given, refer to HTTP/1.1 [RFC 2616] for the details on how to evaluate it. Now, it seems still to be fairly normal to give a sequence of language-ranges in this header without any q= values, and expect the result to be deterministic. Should this clarification be inserted into the updated HTTP document? (The status of RFC 3282 is, btw, DRAFT STANDARD according to the RFC Editor's list) Harald
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 15:42:14 UTC