Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 17 January 2013 09:01 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 D6BD521F8959 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:01:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 i3Q3hXO15pZw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:01:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED22321F8951 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 01:01:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TvlL7-0008GW-7q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:00:49 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:00:49 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TvlL7-0008GW-7q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TvlL3-0008FQ-GD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:00:45 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TvlL2-0005Vb-Du for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:00:45 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.31]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LcE27-1TCDEV0PkT-00jbTp for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:00:18 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2013 09:00:17 -0000
Received: from p5DD950ED.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [93.217.80.237] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 17 Jan 2013 10:00:17 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18MtY0MtHYM7S2nkkFqjz974cmkQJv7wfezFswQD4 LztVkvmrV7YKGg
Message-ID: <50F7BD9C.1080008@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:00:12 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de> <50F7B5B1.5050400@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <50F7B5B1.5050400@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.403, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TvlL2-0005Vb-Du e5b3265154ef043d703e4ea352dacb00
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/50F7BD9C.1080008@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15954
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>

On 2013-01-17 09:26, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Julian,
>
> On 2013/01/17 0:56, Julian Reschke 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.
>
> We also know of implementations, both on the sender and on the receiver
> side (as far as I remember) that use ordering. So maybe something like:
>
> "If no quality values are assigned or multiple language tags have been
> assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages may be listed in
> descending order of priority."
>
> I'm sure somebody can come up with better wording, but I hope you get
> the idea.

The key question is whether the order of same-weighted values matters. 
The proposed text doesn't answer that.

It hasn't mattered according in RFC 2068 and 2616, it doesn't matter for 
other Accept-* header fields, and we know of recipients ignoring the 
order. I think this is sufficient reason to stick with what we had in 
2616, meaning reverting this change.

Best regards, Julian