Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Sun, 20 January 2013 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04C321F868E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:32:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwMOAZDr9VmN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266BB21F857D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:32:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tx4Mc-0006Wq-Jr for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:31:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:31:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tx4Mc-0006Wq-Jr@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1Tx4MX-0006W2-KH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:31:41 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1Tx4MV-0000fr-Sl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:31:41 +0000
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.5.0 (Build 3481)) with SMTP id <0019475239@smtp.qbik.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:32:48 +1300
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:30:45 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB36530380-6C4C-48BD-A5D8-2E444CCFFF99"
In-Reply-To: <CABP7Rbc6-3cyXFs6x2QiNhOUez=XORUHXsvxNppVu5H_03RWRg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <em144175d2-e44d-4209-b5a2-f2dbf14d99d4@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.17263.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.499, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Tx4MV-0000fr-Sl 3c747f3a3c0f7bd011377708fc0cf943
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em144175d2-e44d-4209-b5a2-f2dbf14d99d4@bombed>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16054
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>


------ Original Message ------
From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
>+1.. in fact, for 2.0, I'd very much like to get rid of q-values 
>entirely and depend entirely on order.
>
same here.

The idea may have been laudable in 1998, but really, how can a web 
server tell if some resource is 80% better than another?  A human needs 
to tell it, and humans have enough trouble with other things.

the q=0 option would need to be turned into a Naccept-* header or 
something.   But does anyone even use it outside of testing for 406 
responses which never come?




>
>On Jan 20, 2013 1:54 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>
>>On 20/01/2013, at 11:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> >
>> >> Julian et al,
>> >>
>> >> I think the important bit here is the context that we're talking 
>>about the semantics of an expressed preference -- which can be freely 
>>ignored, or selectively applied, without affecting conformance. The 
>>important thing is that the preference itself have clear semantics, 
>>which I think Roy's change does (especially in concert with changes 
>>elsewhere).
>> >>
>> >> As such, I think the relevant question is whether this is specific 
>>to A-L, or all A-* that take qvalues. Roy, thoughts?
>> >
>> > I am pretty sure it is specific to languages.  Accept has never been
>> > treated as an ordered list, Accept-Encoding was originally designed
>> > to prefer the smallest representation (changing that to qvalues was
>> > unfortunate), and Accept-Charset is almost deprecated at this point.
>>
>>
>>So, wouldn't the same arguments (minus the implementation status) 
>>apply to Accept?
>>
>>I.e., if it's just a preference, and the server is free to choose 
>>among the preferences anyway (or even ignore them), why *not* say 
>>Accept is ordered?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>