Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 25 January 2013 06:15 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 3F23321F89A3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.571, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 x8223qpCa4f0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F64621F867B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TycYh-0003ct-9w for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:14:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:14:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TycYh-0003ct-9w@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TycYd-0003bf-0H for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:14:35 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TycYa-0002xt-4K for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:14:34 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M1Cbu-1UrpdG0XcG-00tBko for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:14:06 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2013 06:14:06 -0000
Received: from p5DD95BCE.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [93.217.91.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2013 07:14:06 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/00dJQ5XT0bUWaNGBnqbLamf2bClsN+QL3/wJxBI rpB4RhWTVTgFpR
Message-ID: <510222AB.1070400@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 07:14:03 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de> <99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net> <F4C2A095-50C7-451B-9AFF-A200592CCB4D@gbiv.com> <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net> <E5B8C951-9C05-4CA4-8A17-2636FEF2A9E9@mnot.net> <424D5D15-6D83-45D7-A957-DE19D30BAF7A@gbiv.com> <51014A2B.5070102@gmx.de> <6B222DC3-3B1B-474D-B300-01282859D26E@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <6B222DC3-3B1B-474D-B300-01282859D26E@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.775, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TycYa-0002xt-4K 3d0138639ba1026147db86f10a975849
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/510222AB.1070400@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16210
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>

On 2013-01-25 00:37, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Removing the text does seem like the most expedient path forward.
>
> That said, I don't find it particularly satisfying; our job is to improve interop, and when there are latent semantics that aren't documented, we have to consider whether we're doing it well.
>
> I propose:
>
> """
> Note that some recipients treat language tags that have the same quality values (including when they are both missing) to be listed in descending order of priority. However, this behaviour cannot be relied upon, and if their relative priority is important, it ought to be communicated by using different quality values.
> """
>
> ... because I think it best captures where we're at.
>
> Roy and Julian? And, especially, anyone else?

That works for me.

Best regards, Julian