Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On 20/01/2013, at 11:52 PM, Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]> 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/