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

Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com> Sun, 30 October 2016 11:20 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 7AE811294A5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 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=-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 gTTSf8ikD5Xt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:20:41 -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 76D0C129412 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c0o5q-0002ry-5s for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:16:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:16:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c0o5q-0002ry-5s@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 1c0o5l-0002r1-0x for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:15:57 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]) 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 1c0o5f-0004vz-DD for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:15:51 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id i127so175270707oia.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:15:31 -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=/JniN5ZVqgN1iKrn3Z1HrjX4oZ+LjYm8feJqjUtrjXk=; b=EBb1w6mw8HtgyrIC4ct0A4w8IPwgKiZNtLgIIdAe/vmiZe6qHY8UeOVTDlkPia2/hV pJj23gSZ5MKzVaSNauO38BWL//6CtSgfDeVtYXp0IMumn0ifGiVPjp2p5+TJz92xNgjf PjqBgSb4Q6lgmQsImtgYS3skje5WJM1L9yIQ3erGMSffuf3JymdTt8DA2ap2EBhe25Ns mkun41mSQ7YAnnDQVanWjmMhMAqxrf0ExQIpSLehZDgT/R60SAzzLOKszjXNnJ22FDRc uh9UF0Mrj5DMrqPtgrTfXyYxZW/KdGZ/cDkmcI0PgGMvFcLbxCFC8LEdQ3EcuG/vNHUO vO4w==
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=/JniN5ZVqgN1iKrn3Z1HrjX4oZ+LjYm8feJqjUtrjXk=; b=UHGAx7P3WyofJrFWafEEXHbdX1DPxLqka6F8XalD6nYBY6IUzha0BHaSH8HY3ldzzy LPzrdgbXDEgfSY6qb9TsfBwVRSSeehFpKsKjoHmnQ56sp4zsXzxc0ga9G/VXK0V6r0f6 inL6QJhkICLx41wYnBtIWijWDdI0WzFtaUNgFhMCr8vGnIJ5PAOR5UXFZUyfLerEJqkN ADIwklj21JFJqj6kB45njbQEGKXJop8eA4Dnxc1yEqOJFXy3QISP3qgn3qpH//7HOrHe fkXRVvtSgoMy+81I11rkqJjHOrbc7+Jlbej7R+dFNtTqNnkEI4kAD5vDVJA8+wf2TrVL r2KA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfUL4eGWLlSXDfPCWK4+IJ/AUVb/MrdweLxZ+wbC+LII60w6A6WydTl790iDFRUnbW4zvU9Zy9g9ybFlw==
X-Received: by 10.202.83.202 with SMTP id h193mr21359120oib.106.1477826125563; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.97.2 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 04:15:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <f11f9281-fd2a-444f-6ca3-8a60313b8f8b@gmx.de>
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> <f11f9281-fd2a-444f-6ca3-8a60313b8f8b@gmx.de>
From: Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:15:25 +1300
Message-ID: <CAHkN8V9DTu=xVft3ZaFo6kYAwqQsFDZc1ZZSfvuiG+bPMnwNfQ@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=209.85.218.52; envelope-from=space.ship.traveller@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.216, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c0o5f-0004vz-DD db403b536f791e78914f1124d8ce39fd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IElzIOKAnGZyLCBlbjsgcT0wLjPigJ0gYSB2YWxpZCBBY2NlcHQtTGFuZ3VhZ2Ugdg==?= =?UTF-8?B?YWx1ZT8=?=
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAHkN8V9DTu=xVft3ZaFo6kYAwqQsFDZc1ZZSfvuiG+bPMnwNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32735
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 Julian, yes I wondered if that was how it was being explained.
It might be the wording of the sentence preceding the table:

> would cause the following values to be associated:

It might be clearer if it were "could be used to compute the following
quality values:"