- From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 08:31:10 -0700
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- CC: www-international@w3.org, ltru@ietf.org
On 5/5/2008 7:39 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Asmus Freytag wrote: > > >>> What I really would like to express is "I prefer original text >>> in french or english, then translated text in one of these two >>> languages." But that's work for RFC 4646 ter :-) >>> > > >> I have precisely the same problem! You express it very clearly. >> > > +1 It infuriates me when xyzzy.com asks me if I want to go to > xyzzy.de, or worse just redirects to xyzzy.de, when I prefer > xyzzy.com for some reason of my own. But that is unrelated to > language tags, it is some "Geo IP" stuff, unfortunately often > "working as designed" (from their POV). > > We don't think that the issue as originally described is unrelated to language negotiation at all. Language negotiation, as implemented seems to make the implicit assumption that where users provide more than one language, the second (and following) are to be treated as fallback, so *any* page in the first language, is preferable to the user, whether its a complete translation or just a partial service intended for those monolingual in the those languages. What you are describing is the further assumption by some sites, that if your first choice of language matches some of their subsidiaries, that you would rather work in that 'locale'. Treating the language preference as what you call 'geo ip' appears to be a clear misuse of the language negotiation feature, whereas the other issue is one of a shortcut in implementation of a scheme, which, if correctly implemented and adopted (including the lack of assigning q values to the contents) might actually have led to the correct results. But +1 to being infuriated about that misuse as well ;-) A./
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 15:31:52 UTC