W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1997

RE: Internationalization Requirements

From: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@bb.opentext.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 04:04:14 -0400
Message-ID: <01BCA08B.798E52C0@cassius.opentext.ch>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>, "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, "'Yaron Goland'" <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: Dylan Barrell <dbarrell@bb.opentext.com>, "w3c-dist-auth@w3.org" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I agree that it would be too difficult to handle variants in general however language variants are a special case which would be easy to handle. There is always a one-to-one relationship between any given resource and its corresponding translation to another given language and the server is currently required to understand this relationship in order to handle the accept-language header correctly.


From: 	Yaron Goland[SMTP:yarong@microsoft.com]
Sent: 	Mittwoch, 30. Juli 1997 21:17
To: 	'Roy T. Fielding'; Martin J. Duerst
Cc: 	Dylan Barrell; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: 	RE: Internationalization Requirements 

Um.. not that I'm aware. We decided very early on to not deal with
variants. It brought up too many ugly issues. In fact, the problem most
likely would require the introduction of a Turing complete scripting
language. Even TCN is not powerful enough to capture all the possible

Either way it was felt that we got a big enough win just solving the
non-variant scenarios that it was worth achieving that goal rather than
being hopelessly lost in an unending morass of negotiation specification


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Roy T. Fielding [SMTP:fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu]
> Sent:	Saturday, July 26, 1997 9:21 PM
> To:	Martin J. Duerst
> Cc:	Dylan Barrell; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: Internationalization Requirements 
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong and show me where I can read about it,
> >> but the server *doesn't* give you the variants list and certainly
> >> doesn't map them to the language and this is exactly what I'm
> >> complaining about.
> >
> >You may be right. I had a look at the HTTP 1.1 spec, and I only
> >found 10.4.7  406 Not Acceptable. The behaviour described there
> >is not very deterministic. Maybe Roy can help out?
> That is why we have a WebDAV working group.  Both the 300 and 406
> response bodies were left unspecified because the intention was that
> they be specified by a group that actually had time to study the
> problem in detail and come up with a [hopefully] better solution
> than some off-the-cuff invention of mine.  It was one of the WebDAV
> to-do items, last time I checked.
> ....Roy
Received on Monday, 4 August 1997 04:07:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:11 UTC