Re: Question regarding RFC 7231 Accept header
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 26 December 2020 05:39 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 053093A0ACB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 21:39:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 tmOZOdiZ8mkz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 21:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFC1C3A0AC4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Dec 2020 21:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kt2Fg-0005h2-CB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:36:28 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:36:28 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kt2Fg-0005h2-CB@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1kt2Fb-0005gG-RJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:36:23 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1kt2Fa-0006ii-4d for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:36:23 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1608960969; bh=O70r0XWxXNXoOiMWVBhxLMNCkMpaLRmASE8kDFXnz48=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=KX1ASKQgduW1ve4pmXfQB5hWm6TgRq4AV7vVuvwWV0EY9g2NvW1h0D6FP3E1SIAE6 t7BO2WeplnLEeqoa9YHshvjsezhvF3E7uGjVD8IcGBMqzn8qqaMuYfO4DuARvDnPmr 7gtrOrHvZlwCjAp/XgPH7Wh4zT06sH/qxrGN5PMQ=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([84.171.146.247]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MJE6L-1kdHRi2BTf-00KhMc for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 06:36:09 +0100
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <A42ABB66-D59F-464A-8FE9-4042CA9C225C@elviss.lv>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <a9619c60-9334-84e4-1394-5390b3943583@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 06:36:08 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A42ABB66-D59F-464A-8FE9-4042CA9C225C@elviss.lv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:CPZz5KIcNC4w9ajv5Ai5Z7o92RIJY9kA02M2kRD4c0hx4ZFdHo5 eRN0kSwr6mA3lJyme7DzhoP+yflvbTuP/W3KXn17s+KoUD9rWhyPw+d3oZcEn9uvnOLO2Y+ xoFgA9loUGfm3BOYde9DqzhbVLoCp7NDwYfUmkL7fEkUrY8y8kVx/J9DtA0nwGKiPA6eAyM 2SHHjJLOqfqKZHLlEWqaw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ieVgZUDJchU=:kBxmsQsyAhBhdyHd0mI8oJ jdTfVeETJgWvXzYE4fTo02cYvk4+4zHz8juHPS0XEHktsG1yRVihD7LH87Pc0/Am2PQ/u48Uh 7X/2DSF/nZ47dWTLAQ1yx4ellYmulvptZ/DxrMTUq0xMcsUrC4odmp+mKmgdihxAWxOZk5LJx Pgf7UM4rjww8LvxXL3k55Q+TWRv6q5Ba2JDAk9BzpT8scK3RDasSoK2GhQX49riE2yGbsH+Sd LzQeJlYOPNwTObQyCC0waB8ubOS8gTNYNP9mMCtnx0qWO8j/9vIifI8pwYR4naUkzDvj3obiq lSoKsub3y7ANSvvLSyfBfo1trPCdfyaS0KFLb99WD64X8Bbr/kVrtHqUanzE7GahmaZoVojPt WQHUzvC2I9hmN5dbOisvrucJzwK5FUkSYjz71OfJlpB676WJVv0vuZs6YOmSwxR70pIwm+wpW FREu4qce8hVzW5uzA15CM6felb/cVSvgKqCFEIkMFhqDF6PQsOOHE7wjW70x9znmJNmlKAxnP KyqIGyoSndFHplpWQ4jkAJP7FJ17Y3a/vyXD/AS3hN36LNXQ052aLY4B86XNsAzyb2/ajOmNx KrFEcsju/z8h71do9z1b+AQQhkrbmLA67RNSHfLk21a2D1egTU9OeSpjyASYcZJeoCRwGLW5O ZFyCaBpbQ12xay0I0ukImXjnbpI8n6WT2GNhtVPbQ/uTjq0PsnPCnzrZUW0ReG9FCcl1l7Bjo cjKPu/yVlv0nR0z3ragxByebllz5Ku8kN5sPGcBQrH1wBgSPTVKG04fx4RLA6RNGY7LP5zWyp bX7Z/HsGVF29VoHtnJMuWaD/ynQw+Pq6T8pwtsRy4DtbLFrDAC3B6FA7TVQ9ZNUX6VKVCgXjU n2Yxwa5qgR8okk+uSBtg==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.561, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1kt2Fa-0006ii-4d e391de1efc5b87798da9e5d8585f1ad0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question regarding RFC 7231 Accept header
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/a9619c60-9334-84e4-1394-5390b3943583@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38346
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Am 26.12.2020 um 05:11 schrieb Elviss Strazdins: > Hello! > > RFC 7231 has one thing unclear regarding the media range precedence in the Accept header. RFC 7231, Section 5.3.2. Accept states that media ranges can be overridden by more specific media ranges or specific media types and if more than one media range applies to a given type, the most specific reference has precedence and gives the following example: > 1. text/plain;format=flowed > 2. text/plain > 3. text/* > 4. */* > > What is the precedence of media ranges that have a wildcard subtype and a parameter? For example which one of these has a higher precedence? > 1. text/*;format=flowed > 2. text/plain > > Could you please clarify which one precedes and could you also improve the section by providing the example with a wildcard subtype and a parameter? > > Thank you! > Elviss Strazdins Hi there! Out of curiosity: have you *ever* seen something like that in practice? It implies that there are parameters that exist across multiple media types; "format" certainly does only apply to text/plain. Best regards, Julian
- Question regarding RFC 7231 Accept header Elviss Strazdins
- Re: Question regarding RFC 7231 Accept header Julian Reschke