- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:36:11 +0100 (MET)
- To: carrasco@innet.lu (M.T. Carrasco Benitez)
- Cc: www-international@www10.w3.org
M.T. Carrasco Benitez: > >1) Defining a nomenclature that allows for translation cost little to >HTTP and could be very useful in translation. Example: > > it-ht (Italian, human translation) > it-mt (Italian, machine translation) You seem to be working from the assumption that HTTP can be changed easily at this point. It cannot be changed easily: people do not want to touch 1.1 anymore, and work on a successor version has not really started yet. You could also get these tags into HTTP by revising the language tags RFC, but I think that is even more difficult. So if you want to define translation mechanisms, you should define them _on top of_ HTTP/1.1. You cannot put new stuff _in_ HTTP/1.1. [...] >5) The Accept-Language should be a ordered "preference list". There is no >need to quantify the preference of the user. There is a great need for q values in all Accept-* headers, including Accept-Language. Without these values, there is not way for the user to express a ranking between the preferences sent in different Accept-* headers. I talked about this earlier on this list. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/msg00471.html for a reference. >Tomas Koen.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 1997 03:43:11 UTC