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

Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 10:08 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 550ED12959C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=-0.431, 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 99dDyLTE1x22 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:08:47 -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 B45B312959F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:08:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bwnjM-0004UT-CI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:04:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:04:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bwnjM-0004UT-CI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>) id 1bwnjH-0004TQ-Mv for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:04:11 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>) id 1bwnj0-0000IO-0y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:03:56 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id d132so24444247oib.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:03:33 -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 :cc; bh=Bse/wwZySpdgK8xmBQrgRZ5WzXce0EMYuA4eERKSsic=; b=zFcJ3gLZG9vBrCZaFmVszJvm2QsxW40RnNLISgwutpIT+/OuRUbnVeGvDvZMHdWha/ PENIW5utp6fO2bNFbwjQM5feawpxV4ixLGIM7GZAFdOEisaRNq2N0+S0GhDUBChLy5KS KkjOTjFeWY6gQ1aUQvF03NJn+EfviDemyQcpVybg21/bVM15UjCc1aVULUNsjdSXxcrV ePz+0ph0N7AouvtK1MR7ZFopcDJHf3njiWfqHYoo2Zcfm7Y2JuDGWXR4pOh+rp5J3rlg 5M6eaY7Bh43KIf4EZ8euxhBPfQyPYrbkORO1mWJUSecUdGCWYPS9qSnH/7QaBCZO6TIc Hq5w==
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:cc; bh=Bse/wwZySpdgK8xmBQrgRZ5WzXce0EMYuA4eERKSsic=; b=FILXAkAPoVg4Wi/Qr/cQa7RDyT0v82cC53Wf1MhQYM4JJn9gIYWwtfZ8TXGAYLBcKY P6/X5LfI2gILopkSi08HeX7tfuy4TXbXmvMWoghUAg6ZkQNCdGZ0/Wj7PM142/enROfO FBw9o4f9xlYG5ri8ywTz6z8TFd6NqW7WsRgxKytWiNKYut+hQqDMxMvTWDGlySVJ2oub g1TOAddBY6XpFiSd5qhqR80ZH4ooljFxjS51jgZchIax2hJ1BMAc/F5NK9WvC3swurNj QvHEukq03zf+iq8iogUq/ctckwiBULvFeGa9LW6Aj1BG+rjU+jkv5zmX7AtHtLyisVVI DeWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmkRct/jDH9RU51gg8pzAS2nZOh8hcxIHvXCEKDTl7yAwBdhYF/Q7fHpOe/gVlddA1Sz3Lad+3QHJ6CnA==
X-Received: by 10.202.245.7 with SMTP id t7mr2908290oih.78.1476871407753; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.97.2 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 03:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7135c8b0-9f02-04bb-5649-dbab1ba6313c@gmx.de>
References: <CAHkN8V9RyAVprdWT2ZRDfDyCc+aj7Q6iJdGRr8N2m-qzEis7Kw@mail.gmail.com> <7135c8b0-9f02-04bb-5649-dbab1ba6313c@gmx.de>
From: Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 23:03:27 +1300
Message-ID: <CAHkN8V_gsHTNUoG4qEOPXHkyvWrZBRhWdORuntWyBg2PPNM2og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.53; envelope-from=space.ship.traveller@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f53.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bwnj0-0000IO-0y 91e036d825f0a1f23d8036bd2eefd047
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_gsHTNUoG4qEOPXHkyvWrZBRhWdORuntWyBg2PPNM2og@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32631
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>

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.

On 19 October 2016 at 19:32, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2016-10-19 02:31, Samuel Williams wrote:
>>
>> According to the RFC, it's okay to have *LWS between words and
>> separators. However, if you look at the specific ABNF for matching the
>> Accept-Language field, it doesn't allow for whitespace around the ;
>> character.
>>
>> Here is the exact LWS specification:
>>
>> implied *LWS: The grammar described by this specification is
>> word-based. Except where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can
>> be included between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string),
>> and between adjacent words and separators, without changing the
>> interpretation of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or
>> separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for the definition of
>> "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a single
>> token.
>>
>> Here is the ABNF grammar:
>>
>>    Accept-Language = "Accept-Language" ":"
>>                      1#( language-range [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
>>    language-range  = ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8ALPHA ) ) | "*" )
>>
>> Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks
>
>
> a) Look at the current spec, not RFC 2616.
>
> b) Over there you will find:
>
>>   weight = OWS ";" OWS "q=" qvalue
>>   qvalue = ( "0" [ "." 0*3DIGIT ] )
>>          / ( "1" [ "." 0*3("0") ] )
>
>
>
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#quality.values>
>
> Best regards, Julian
>