- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:30:55 -0400
- To: Etienne Miret <etienne.miret@ens-lyon.fr>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Hello Etienne, On 15-Jun-08, at 4:05 AM, Etienne Miret wrote: > I promised you I’d send those patches two months ago. Sorry I didn’t > kept my word. No problem, but it looks like we may have miscommunicated. My bad, really. > This being said, why don’t you want to forward Accept-Charset ? As mentioned in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2008Apr/0104.html - I have nothing against accept-charset. I had misunderstood you were adding "accept-encoding". Accept-Charset is fine by me, and indeed I already added some support into the validator a few months ago: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/validator/httpd/cgi-bin/check.diff?r1=1.582&r2=1.583&f=h > So, in case I convinced you, here is a patch wich forwards all 3 > Accept, Accept-Language and Accept-Charset: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=556 > >> 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? > I almost sure there was a rationale, but since I can’t remember it, > I changed this in the two aforementioned patches. The naming is now > more consistent. Great. I will review the patch and apply it, unless I find any issue with it. Thank you. -- olivier
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2008 18:31:33 UTC