Re: Fwd: I'm still alive!/ notes from FAQ review on apache server

AHA! I see now you were in hiding hatching an intricate plot to do away
with Richard who has now mysteriously disappeared just as you return.
Clever, being on the telecon and pretending to be in London after having
done away with Richard in France...

;-)

attached are my notes on the FAQ we reviewed, from my recollection of
the telecon since I managed to irretrievably destroy the notes...
apologies for anything I left off.

feel free to correct extensively.
tex



Lloyd Honomichl wrote:
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: Lloyd Honomichl <lloyd@honomichl.com>
> > Date: Tue Jan 6, 2004  9:44:46  PM Europe/London
> > To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
> > Subject: I'm still alive!

2004/1/7
Attendees: Russ, Lloyd, Martin, Tex

Discussed the Apache language negotiation faq.
Here are the comments I remember, since the detailed notes I took were promptly, accidentally vaporized after the call....
Please check that this reflects your comments completely and accurately.
Apologies in advance.


1) The question should not reference content authors, as they may not be the ones to address negotiation. Administrators can also take advantage of these commands. (I do note in para 3 and 4 the faq presumes the author, and distinguishes privs coming from the admin.)

2) The faq mentions multiple approaches but then proceeds to discuss only one (multiviews). It was suggested that we clarify that within the faq and also in the question. Wording of the Q (to resolve pts 1 and 2), could be something like:

How does one set up language negotiation via Multiviews on an Apache Web Server?

3) Answer, para 1
We didn't think that the lang. neg. should be presented as an either/or choice, since in the previous meetings on this topic we considered it was likely people would do a combined approach.

4) The term "language negotiation" should be defined. Some readers may not know what it is, and even though it is a standard term in the industry some of the participants didn't think it was apt. It isn't really a negotiation since a request is made, and some response is given and end of story...

5) para 2, bullets 1 & 2
The term "strategy" didn't seem appropriate. In bullet 1, consider "convention" instead. In bullet 2, "strategy" also indicated more policy-making than is required, when it is just identifying default values or responses.
Consider something more along the lines of "planning languages to be returned, when languages are requested that you don't support".

6) para 3
delete the word "unfortunately". It's ambiguous as to what is unfortunate, and it is not needed.

7) para 4
Split the second sentence into 2 sentences.
The para should also say something to the effect: "This faq describes only the Multiviews approach."

8) The heading "One possible approach" should be "Using Multiviews to configure Language Negotiation", "The Multviews Approach", or some such.

9) We suggest the default be something other than english.

10) Section on File Naming
Should other file types be considered besides html? (xml, css, jpg...)

11) para 3,
1st sentence refers to accessing the files when not on an apache server.
Perhaps it should say when accessed directly, or when not accessing thru the network to the server. After all, even while being served, they can be accessed directly locally. Similarly, the next phrase should refer to "accessing the resource via the apache server."

12) Just curious, given the example, the multiviews must always refer to html. If there were 2 files example.jpg and example.html, the href without the extension would return the html?

13) reference to rfc 3066 should also be in the links section.

14) More generally, there should be many more links inline in the text, so people can reference immediately if they choose, and not have to look to the links section to see if there is a link there.

15) The name of the file .htaccess is not optional is it? If it is mandatory, the sentence should not say "typically be called".

16) Not discussed in the meeting, but I think the sentence recommending a default of English should be deleted. The widespread nature of english is irrelevant unless your page is directed for the public at large. The choice of default should reflect the makeup of your target audience and might very well be some other language. And english can't be a default if you haven't translated to english.

17) specifying the default files 2.030 and above
ForceLanguagePriority does not specify the default, the prioritization of languages does. FLP suggests the methodology. Also, LanguagePriority is not specifying a particular file, but the language. The first sentence should be rewritten.

18) Some text should explain the logic behind the example, as opposed to  stating the result.
FLP allows a fallback method to be used, and the Lang.Pri. declares the ordering of possible choices. If a Spanish page doesnt exist, and if an English page does exist, then it will be served. If not, then a French page will be served. and so forth.
(This is what we speculated the behavior to be. It needs confirmation.)

19) section on default files in 1.3.4 and above
The heading should instead refer to versions 2.0.30 and below, or if we think there might be someone still using a version less than 1.3.4, than "versions 1.3.4 to 2.0.30".

20) aha! I just read the BTW. Suggest mentioning that files other than html can be used, within the answer. With a section name like "BTW", idiots like me may not read it, as it sounds extraneous. However, the point about extensions is fundamental.

21) Background
First sentence would be slightly less ambiguous if it added "user's" to " language preferences". Also, perhaps use active voice to improve readability. e.g.

User agents provide information about the user's language preferences in the HTTP Accept-Language header of the request to a server for a document.
(Also provide a link to accept-language header)

22) Localisation, practise and other terms use British spelllings.
We were hoping Santa brought you an American spell-checker! ;-)

23) There is a question of how to use the recommendation of .pl-pl.
Is it:
	addlanguage 		pl .pl-pl
	LanguagePriority	en pl fr
	
i.e. pl-pl is the extension, it gets assigned a language code, and then LanguagePriority uses language codes?

Perhaps use polish throughout to make it clear.

24) The link for rfc 1766 is wrong.

25) Does the order of the statements in the .htaccess file make a difference? if so what is the preferred ordering? If not, state so.

26) Does the .htaccess only apply to the current directory, or are subdirectories also affected? (I think subdirs are affected, unless they have their own .htaccess).


27) The group felt that with the changes we recommended the faq could/should be published.