- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:14:34 +1000
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Proposal updated in ticked and marked for -23. <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/448#comment:4> Thanks, On 01/05/2013, at 10:35 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Mark Nottingham wrote: >> Good point. >> >> how about: >> >> """ >> A request without any Accept-Language header field implies that the user >> agent will accept any language in response. If an Accept-Language header >> field is present in a request and none of the available representations >> for the response have a language tag that is listed as acceptable, the >> origin server MAY either disregard the Accept header field by treating >> the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation, or honor >> the Accept header field by sending a 406 (Not Acceptable) response. >> However, the latter is not encouraged, as doing so can prevent users >> from accessing content that they might be able to use (with translation >> software, for example). >> """ > > Two cases of s/Accept/Accept-Language/. "MAY either ... or ..." is bad > usage of RFC 2119 terms. And I don't like the implication that sending > anything other than 406 is "not honoring" the Accept-Language header. > But this is close enough to say "works for me". > > Thanks, > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 05:15:01 UTC