- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:02:44 +1300
- To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
- CC: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@nickshanks.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19/01/2013 8:12 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > sorry, missed that ;q=0.8 > > ignore that comment about order pref But your message is another great example of why stating order will improve interoperability. The explicit statement that no q-value defaults to q=1, AND discussion about ordering by q-value leads many to interpret the old specs as the header being ordered exactly like you did there. Some large deployed implementations are doing this; correctly or not according to 2616. Amos
Received on Saturday, 19 January 2013 09:03:15 UTC