- From: Dale Anderson <dra@redevised.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:18:04 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 02:18:32 UTC
Hi Julian, can you post the low-down on that dataset or email me on the side I'm on paid time-off (not that HTTP isn't a pure pleasure, I assure you I'm very fond especially of transmitting those texts bearing Hyperlinks) but I will shoot the facts of the matter over to my time-on colleages at F5 etc. Where's the data, Thanks, (from the top of the world. Home office). Dale Anderson :) 2011/11/23 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > On 2011-11-23 23:29, Amos Jeffries wrote: > >> ... >> >> I've been keeping an eye on this since implementing language negotiation >> in Squid. >> >> It appears that nearly all agents are sending the language codes sorted >> by q value anyway. Whether they send the q value or not it is still >> possible to optimize by using the left-most wins assumption. >> >> If anyone is interested in doing a deeper analysis I have a dataset >> available covering the last year on several networks linking the >> Accept-Language and User-Agent header pair. >> ... >> > > Analysis would be good. > > I'm skeptical because we're not really allowed to make changes breaking > previously compliant implementations without *very* good reasons. > > I'm also not too enthusiastic having to consider whether this would be > *specific* to Accept-Language, or apply to all Accept headers. > > Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 02:18:32 UTC