- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:42:22 +0100
- To: Carlos Tejo Alonso <carlos.tejo@fundacionctic.org>
- CC: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, www-talk@w3.org
Carlos Tejo Alonso wrote: > >> Maybe I have express myself wrong. I will try again with an example: > >> I am abroad, using a shared pc with arabic language as default. I > >> send a > >> request to the URL http://www.example.org/doc. By content > >> negociation, a > >> server will response with a page written in arabic. In that moment, I > >> want to change the language of the content, and the return page > >> should > >> be again http://www.example.org/doc. > >> What would be the correct approach ? > >> - a link that invokes a HTTP GET method > >> - a button that invokes a HTTP POST method > > > > It seems to be that you're changing the state of the server, thus > > GET would be incorrect. > > I disagree. The Accept-Language: header is responded to in the reply > to the GET > request containing it and does not alter state on the server. The > server is > ready on the next hit from anyone to provide the same range of > languages as on > this hit. With the same server defaults, not defaulting to the last > request > satisfied. You didn't tell us before that sessions are in use. But anyway, you're changing state, so GET is the wrong thing to do here. > If you click on the flag of your national language on a site to get that > language version, that is changing the state of your session, yes. > > --- > > That's the problem: the way to interprete it. I am looking for a > normative answer from W3C, but I haven't found yet anything in the > documentation about it. You can't get a "normative" answer from the W3C. First of all, the W3C isn't in charge (HTTP/1.1 is an IETF specification). So, what's relevant is what RFC2616 has to say about GET. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2008 18:43:11 UTC