Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 24 January 2013 01:18 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 ED29521F85BC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:18:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.878, 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 p-1CImOngAdU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED4821F85AD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyBSA-00032X-7C for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:18:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:18:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyBSA-00032X-7C@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TyBS1-0002y3-5h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:17:57 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TyBRz-0006n2-IZ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 01:17:57 +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 B9AE722E1F4; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:17:32 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:17:28 +1100
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E5B8C951-9C05-4CA4-8A17-2636FEF2A9E9@mnot.net>
References: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de> <99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net> <F4C2A095-50C7-451B-9AFF-A200592CCB4D@gbiv.com> <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net>
To: Roy T. 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=-0.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyBRz-0006n2-IZ bd9bb900103a25900cd76e8d1a4aa776
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E5B8C951-9C05-4CA4-8A17-2636FEF2A9E9@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16136
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>

So, does anyone have an issue with making ordering significant when there's no qvalue for *all* headers that use qvalues?

Roy, I'm interpreting your answer as "we don't do anything with this information today," but as per below I don't think this stops us from defining it that way.

Regards



On 21/01/2013, at 8:51 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 
> On 20/01/2013, at 11:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 19, 2013, at 6:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> I am pretty sure it is specific to languages.  Accept has never been
>> treated as an ordered list, Accept-Encoding was originally designed
>> to prefer the smallest representation (changing that to qvalues was
>> unfortunate), and Accept-Charset is almost deprecated at this point.
> 
> 
> So, wouldn't the same arguments (minus the implementation status) apply to Accept?
> 
> I.e., if it's just a preference, and the server is free to choose among the preferences anyway (or even ignore them), why *not* say Accept is ordered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 

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