Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2013-01-25 06:31, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2013/01/25 8:37, 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.
>
> Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but it sounds to me that Julian is
> insisting that it's okay to send arbitrary replies (e.g. once French,
> once English at random) if there are no q-values. It has been very

It is, according to the spec. If it hurts, don't do it (thus add qvalues).

> clearly explained that this is highly confusing (in other words, bad for
> interoperability). Even if the current spec allows this, it would be
> good to have some text in the new spec that says that's a bad idea.

We could also say that leaving the choice to the server might lead to 
different languages being picked in subsequent requests.

> Otherwise, I'm fine with the above Note, except for a small nit:
> Please change "including when they are both missing" to "including when
> they are missing", because there may be more than two missing (or equal)
> q-values.
>
> Regards,   Martin.

Best regards, Julian