- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:26:25 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hello Julian, On 2013/01/17 0:56, Julian Reschke wrote: > Hi there, > > with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2119#file1>, > the spec now says: > > "If no quality values are assigned or multiple language tags have been > assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages are listed in > descending order of priority." > > This is a change from both RFC 2068 and RFC 2616 which we *did* discuss > back in the thread starting with < > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011OctDec/0223.html>; > back then we decided not to make this change because we know of > implementations ignoring the ordering, and no convincing argument was > given for making the ordering significant. We also know of implementations, both on the sender and on the receiver side (as far as I remember) that use ordering. So maybe something like: "If no quality values are assigned or multiple language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages may be listed in descending order of priority." I'm sure somebody can come up with better wording, but I hope you get the idea. Regards, Martin. > I believe this change should be backed out. > > Best regards, Julian > >
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 08:27:02 UTC