Re: Is “fr, en; q=0.3” a valid Accept-Language value?

Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com> Sun, 30 October 2016 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 47EE3129475 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 043finYKuBDa for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 255201293FF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c0mLx-0007cK-Dv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:24:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:24:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c0mLx-0007cK-Dv@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>) id 1c0mLt-0007Zg-1a for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:24:29 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com ([209.85.218.42]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>) id 1c0mLm-00013r-Ew for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 09:24:23 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 62so53278056oif.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=/j9FtHqaYEwS6mFeOF0Q0Z3toSOiI1aybu/F5KE1aEg=; b=RoKzpYqHhoCmNk7eyNKGi6Hp5AN9e6xM3njQ6k64jDQ4S12FjIzbK04PkxWoM6WK23 ycsSPSnFdBWIsvubip5qfP4vyEHCCUvw4wBc+s5cJhy3uK/6sGsQ9RuYTPGHibDDyhsV T7bvylOn1K32B05urT2ImWDRV+qeUIGhRC/pJfGXpdFokdZ/UW40vXKlR95SJOcAYcsK fLzQ/NWu49mFjCRvQcbUqT3gWyHa3/7BvvqzuOuS44unsDMod+OGsjlBFf5OqqugQY7E keTJa70S5GvoMOcq9/64v4UWbf7LGQ0jKgbqGl89oJxGMUG/tCONKxbanJ0PQEU+w8IM RgXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=/j9FtHqaYEwS6mFeOF0Q0Z3toSOiI1aybu/F5KE1aEg=; b=XpFCmWpHlwx6QQMBkKoAmB6MgG62ZVjuu6K+URxoAcA5n79uELGlyKIHP13RqsAd2O f8s/Bgzoqb8Ht5yEDZDIzrFTRWUP/i1fJsiwCR/jsXpm7Z7LltQSGzcWmyUTsir0vtnE /iXuZzAh4OtnN5Ac3r71t8QI4iMdGCnxtNlirA2KcO5eqImTTEu4xjWtkdyQHJpjFhbS +jwTMqzWGWTexYCgVxnb02MwPYLZCFD7bbN1qtLInNaSCugA98OthTFNcXo6Z2LKLFX0 0VJED3/+SBPx1rFA4Flxe1Xno0y+vl0q56BISRO2LejDClhRkZYeyXK0DnjSTJ953P+/ IUDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvd8njc/OBqaZfZRMaIBcgaRJyLVXpXMLyJyu/8kEp3HrtlAc07BnIKftb1McTpEkwHHYcmqIjX0oLKs6w==
X-Received: by 10.157.58.75 with SMTP id j69mr15855995otc.196.1477819436046; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.97.2 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHkN8V-gPifMhXt76M5o+ty-A-gAjJvrL=Tt9h8xXW-0CwoX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHkN8V9RyAVprdWT2ZRDfDyCc+aj7Q6iJdGRr8N2m-qzEis7Kw@mail.gmail.com> <7135c8b0-9f02-04bb-5649-dbab1ba6313c@gmx.de> <CAHkN8V_gsHTNUoG4qEOPXHkyvWrZBRhWdORuntWyBg2PPNM2og@mail.gmail.com> <46cad21a-270b-76cd-9b43-11d66d49e116@gmx.de> <CAHkN8V-gPifMhXt76M5o+ty-A-gAjJvrL=Tt9h8xXW-0CwoX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 22:23:55 +1300
Message-ID: <CAHkN8V_MN0LS1=Dh0Hcm7QW0MJ4+rRGy1vM5Um297cMtroUXOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.42; envelope-from=space.ship.traveller@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f42.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.699, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c0mLm-00013r-Ew 24ad24f741f06ae3d4496ad3b55fee66
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IElzIOKAnGZyLCBlbjsgcT0wLjPigJ0gYSB2YWxpZCBBY2NlcHQtTGFuZ3VhZ2Ugdg==?= =?UTF-8?B?YWx1ZT8=?=
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAHkN8V_MN0LS1=Dh0Hcm7QW0MJ4+rRGy1vM5Um297cMtroUXOA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32731
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>

Also, just in case anyone is interested, this is for a Ruby gem which
implements RFC compliant parsing of Accept* headers.

https://github.com/ioquatix/http-accept

On 30 October 2016 at 22:21, Samuel Williams
<space.ship.traveller@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just as a follow up, I've been using other examples on that page as
> part of the unit tests.
>
> However, I am finding it hard to understand the final table:
>
> The media type quality factor associated with a given type is
> determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence that
> matches the type. For example,
>
>   Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/html;q=0.7, text/html;level=1,
>           text/html;level=2;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5
>
> would cause the following values to be associated:
>
> Media Type Quality Value
> text/html;level=1 q=1
> text/html q=0.7
> text/plain q=0.3
> image/jpeg q=0.5
> text/html;level=2 q=0.4
> text/html;level=3 q=0.7
>
> But I fail to see, for example, where image/jpeg comes from or, say,
> text/html;level=3 because they aren't listed in the given Accept:
> header. Is this a documentation bug?
>
>
> On 19 October 2016 at 23:20, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2016-10-19 12:03, Samuel Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks so much that is really helpful. I didn't know there was a new
>>> RFC, and I did look.. I couldn't find it.
>>
>>
>> The place to look is the RFC Editor's status page:
>>
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>