Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

+1.. in fact, for 2.0, I'd very much like to get rid of q-values entirely
and depend entirely on order.
On Jan 20, 2013 1:54 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>