- From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:03:08 -0400
- To: Etienne Miret <etienne.miret@ens-lyon.fr>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008, Etienne Miret wrote: > I didn't forward accept-encoding, for reasons I explained in my first > post. I guess you meant "accept-charset". Indeed, you're right. > They do clutter the interface, I was very aware of this issue, which is > why I made two different patches. But I don't think I duplicated any > options. When writing my patch, I mainly made use of available (but > hidden) options. However, I'll check that. Right again, I misread. I got confused by the fact you used the http_accept_language param for the templates, while the CGI uses the accept_language param, etc. Would it be better to stay consistent here, or was there a rationale behind the naming? -- olivier
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 00:03:41 UTC