- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:52:51 +0200
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, mnot@mnot.net
- Cc: nekt@nekt.ru, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 06.07.2016 12:48, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7231, > "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7231&eid=4734 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Alexey Blyshko <nekt@nekt.ru> > > Section: 5.3.5. > > Original Text > ------------- > The "Accept-Language" header field can be used by user agents to > indicate the set of natural languages that are preferred in the > response. Language tags are defined in Section 3.1.3.1. > > Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ weight ] ) > language-range = > <language-range, see [RFC4647], Section 2.1> > > Each language-range can be given an associated quality value > representing an estimate of the user's preference for the languages > specified by that range, as defined in Section 5.3.1. For example, > > Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7 > > would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and > other types of English". > > Corrected Text > -------------- > The "Accept-Language" header field can be used by user agents to > indicate the set of natural languages that are preferred in the > response. Language tags are defined in Section 3.1.3.1. > > Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ weight ] ) > language-range = > <language-range, see [RFC5646], Section 2.1> > > Each language-range can be given an associated quality value > representing an estimate of the user's preference for the languages > specified by that range, as defined in Section 5.3.1. For example, > > Accept-Language: da, en-GB;q=0.8, en;q=0.7 > > would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and > other types of English". > > Notes > ----- > RFC4647 -> RFC5646 > en-gb -> en-GB > ... As far as I can tell, language-range is defined in RFC 4647, not in RFC 5646. So the change as proposed seems to be incorrect. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:53:33 UTC