- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:12:44 +0900
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-1 I don't think that's necessary; it already states that ordering is a good idea. On 28/01/2013, at 11:51 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > On 2013/01/25 22:55, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013-01-25 14:02, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2013-01-25 07:16, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>> On 2013-01-25 06:31, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > >>> This removes the new text about ordering, and adds the note below: >>> >>> > Note: Some recipients treat language tags that have the same >>> > quality values (including when they are missing) to be listed in >>> > descending order of priority. However, this behavior cannot be >>> > relied upon, and if their relative priority is important -- such >>> > as for consistent results for a sequence of requests -- it ought >>> > to be communicated by using different quality values. >>> >>> Feedback appreciated, Julian >> >> In the meantime, Roy resolved this in >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2163>, which works >> for me as well: >> >> "Note that some recipients treat the order in which language tags are >> listed as an indication of descending priority, particularly for tags >> that are assigned equal quality values (no value is the same as q=1). >> However, this behavior cannot be relied upon. For consistency and to >> maximize interoperability, many user agents assign each language tag a >> unique quality value while also listing them in order of decreasing >> quality. Additional discussion of language priority lists can be found >> in Section 2.3 of [RFC4647]." > > Sorry, but I'm not yet happy with this. It doesn't mention the random return problem at all, and puts all responsibility on the client. > > So I propose adding the following: > > Note that it would be allowed for servers to return a version at random if they receive language tags with equal quality values. However, this can be very confusing for human users. A more deterministic behavior, e.g. treating the order in which language tags are listed as an indication of descending priority for tags that are assigned equal quality values, is preferable. > > Regards, Martin. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 03:13:11 UTC