IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Sun, 20 January 2013 22:51 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 C23FF21F857E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:51:51 -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 6xnIyBQ2TjPc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:51:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C611221F84B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tx3jQ-0006Kc-SN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:51:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:51:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tx3jQ-0006Kc-SN@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Tx3jK-0006Js-40 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:51:10 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Tx3jJ-00088O-AK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:51:10 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 9so5066488iec.16 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:50:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2KfXbEPdZBpwoOo4lmbf3BwJOBbO9gneAbT5AHPWrX8=; b=XkpYOFZ+HlLl+Nj2H19JlOETAdsF5pQWMZnG7bHKQ9yOQgzH1LMzV/mZ45YaLVvtcG XZ6HkaeeeorxTkCCnaKbVBSQz3m11LRS3DTNaH80stxNk1nwVqSraSsl5AZWvv9YyYYB XL7kaHfZ4QeZaf7w01WzyBS1Hyn65hm0rdzCk9cuC2/CAy7rj31GTQSbyXmFO2+wSTax 2KX701a4c3GUgvRaBEUP2qaAfoMMNvjwOLDwMfxetTm5ONTm0EpDdrF0n5JnAwh7NW1w CuydfZtKPCLWbEkFCEY40kno3vaGITKUkX8H1cr6gkiebla0fzDsgrZQfJw3SMftS8DZ 2F8Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.178.10 with SMTP id cu10mr7777616igc.75.1358722243636; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.26.137 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:50:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.26.137 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:50:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net>
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>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:50:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc6-3cyXFs6x2QiNhOUez=XORUHXsvxNppVu5H_03RWRg@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f839ca1ae2f9104d3c02ceb
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.760, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Tx3jJ-00088O-AK 36757b0aaec0c22e1e6976430f72db61
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7Rbc6-3cyXFs6x2QiNhOUez=XORUHXsvxNppVu5H_03RWRg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16047
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>

+1.. in fact, for 2.0, I'd very much like to get rid of q-values entirely
and depend entirely on order.
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/
>
>
>
>
>

v2.8.10 | Report a Bug | By Email