- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 12:44:44 PDT
- To: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <gjw@wnetc.com>
- CC: webdav@warlok.ds.boeing.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
The proper label for the language of content is content-language:, if it is part of the wrapper. Some media types (e.g., text/html) also have provision for labelling components as being in a particular language. However, there isn't a direct correspondence between accept-language (which describes the preference of the user of the client) and content-language (which denotes the language of the content for purposes of viewing, hyphenation, display conventions, etc.). > Similarly, a PUT (or check in) should be able to specify a language (It's > a little non-intuitive to use "Accept-Language" here, but I suppose it > would work. If the server is unable to store language specific versions, > or is unable to store the document under the language specified, I believe > it should respond with I think PUT on negotiated resources for which the variants don't have URLs should basically be disallowed. (Well, you might PUT a multipart/alternative and then expect the result to be content negotiated as a response). That is, if you have foo.html which is really foo.fr.html and foo.en-us.html and you just want to update the French version, then you should PUT to foo.fr.html and not use some arcane invocation of PUT foo.html which says "only replace a part of this". It's probably the same reason why PUT on byte ranges should be disallowed. Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Friday, 6 June 1997 15:45:41 UTC