Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 20 January 2013 02:36 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 5C85521F87B6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:36:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.520, 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 VfdWwWCSJjN2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8117121F877A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Twkka-0001ar-3N for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:35:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:35:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Twkka-0001ar-3N@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TwkkV-0001a7-D4 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:35:07 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TwkkU-0001oA-IU for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 02:35:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.240.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8008822E1F3; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:34:43 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:34:39 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net>
References: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.269, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TwkkU-0001oA-IU d23800d36653baa2a641f6e235f9a7fc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16032
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>

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?



On 17/01/2013, at 2:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi there,
> 
> with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2119#file1>, the spec now says:
> 
> "If no quality values are assigned or multiple language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages are listed in descending order of priority."
> 
> This is a change from both RFC 2068 and RFC 2616 which we *did* discuss back in the thread starting with <​ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011OctDec/0223.html>gt;; back then we decided not to make this change because we know of implementations ignoring the ordering, and no convincing argument was given for making the ordering significant.
> 
> I believe this change should be backed out.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/