- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:07:20 +0100
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-18 09:46, Amos Jeffries wrote: > ... > ... > I'm with Roy on this one. It's not adding any new requirement about > interpretation, simply stating that the list is ordered, as is actually > the case from most senders. > There is no requirement added/removed about server interpretation so > those servers implementing random selection out of the ordered set are > still compliant. Those servers implementing ordered interpretation are > ... They are? How so? If the client sends Accept-Language: en, de and the server returns German text, although English would have been available, is it still compliant? > now compliant - where before with the list defined as un-ordered they > would be non-compliant due to mis-interpreting an un-ordered list as > ordered. That doesn't make sense, sorry. If the list ordering is defined to be irrelevant it's totally ok to pick the first match. > ... >> Right now they interoperate as specified by the spec. If we change the >> spec, they do not anymore (or only some of the time). >> > > The new spec does not forbid random selection. Merely states that the > client *wants* it to be interpreted non-randomly. Obeying that client > preference is still optional. > ... Again, that doesn't make any sense at all. If we say that the list is ordered by preference (in absence of qvalues), this implies that a recipient should pick the *first* matching language. If it does not, it's not interpreting the message as defined. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 09:07:55 UTC