- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 08:51:40 +1100
- To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20/01/2013, at 11:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Julian et al, >> >> I think the important bit here is the context that we're talking about the semantics of an expressed preference -- which can be freely ignored, or selectively applied, without affecting conformance. The important thing is that the preference itself have clear semantics, which I think Roy's change does (especially in concert with changes elsewhere). >> >> As such, I think the relevant question is whether this is specific to A-L, or all A-* that take qvalues. Roy, thoughts? > > I am pretty sure it is specific to languages. Accept has never been > treated as an ordered list, Accept-Encoding was originally designed > to prefer the smallest representation (changing that to qvalues was > unfortunate), and Accept-Charset is almost deprecated at this point. So, wouldn't the same arguments (minus the implementation status) apply to Accept? I.e., if it's just a preference, and the server is free to choose among the preferences anyway (or even ignore them), why *not* say Accept is ordered? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2013 21:52:09 UTC