Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4734)

Sounds like REJECTED, then.

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 9:04 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> On 2016/07/06 19:52, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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
> 
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
> 
>>>     Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ weight ] )
>>>     language-range  =
>>>               <language-range, see [RFC5646], Section 2.1>
> 
>>>     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.
> 
> Yes indeed, see e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47.
> 
> The other change, from 'en-gb' to 'en-GB', may be seen as a tiny stylistic improvement (because the 'canonical' way to write country codes in language tags is upper case), but is not at all required (because language tags are case-insensitive).
> 
> Regards,    Martin.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 08:01:24 UTC