- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:41:13 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hello Julian, On 2011/11/24 7:41, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 agree with Harald's analysis. I think it's up to people who want to claim the contrary to do some footwork. I would definitely NOT go as far as Dale and say "ignore the q= values, they will be in order". That would explicitly be against the current spec. But saying that if there are no q values, then the leftmost matching should win will definitely bring the spec and reality closer together. > I'm skeptical because we're not really allowed to make changes breaking > previously compliant implementations without *very* good reasons. Would the fact that widespread practice is different from the spec, and changing the spec seriously increases interoperability, not be a *very* good reason? > I'm also not too enthusiastic having to consider whether this would be > *specific* to Accept-Language, or apply to all Accept headers. I don't know much about the other headers. There is a strong difference between Accept-Language (which can be set by the user through Options/Preferences in most browsers) and the others (which are mostly just baked into the browser). Regards, Martin.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 06:41:48 UTC