Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 25 January 2013 13:04 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 E36EC21F8536 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:04:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.577, 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 oJERcR7wWsEX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19DA21F85EA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tyivd-0007I4-4T for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:02:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:02:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tyivd-0007I4-4T@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 1TyivX-0007HH-85 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:02:39 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TyivW-00039A-2l for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:02:39 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.31]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MFwhE-1UCWhO0bAs-00EvY6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:02:12 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2013 13:02:12 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp031) with SMTP; 25 Jan 2013 14:02:12 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+DyPUrQ/2DaFatyp4mDaC5yt1RpA+VTjMBQ+e8QA xQShiSgAEvBbiS
Message-ID: <51028249.90407@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:02:01 +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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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> <E5B8C951-9C05-4CA4-8A17-2636FEF2A9E9@mnot.net> <424D5D15-6D83-45D7-A957-DE19D30BAF7A@gbiv.com> <51014A2B.5070102@gmx.de> <6B222DC3-3B1B-474D-B300-01282859D26E@mnot.net> <5102189B.3030009@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <5102233B.10502@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <5102233B.10502@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; 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=-3.398, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyivW-00039A-2l 7906af7f4ff294e7c8541bbb72a1c9ce
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51028249.90407@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16216
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 2013-01-25 07:16, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-01-25 06:31, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> On 2013/01/25 8:37, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Removing the text does seem like the most expedient path forward.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't find it particularly satisfying; our job is to
>>> improve interop, and when there are latent semantics that aren't
>>> documented, we have to consider whether we're doing it well.
>>>
>>> I propose:
>>>
>>> """
>>> Note that some recipients treat language tags that have the same
>>> quality values (including when they are both missing) to be listed in
>>> descending order of priority. However, this behaviour cannot be relied
>>> upon, and if their relative priority is important, it ought to be
>>> communicated by using different quality values.
>>> """
>>>
>>> ... because I think it best captures where we're at.
>>
>> Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but it sounds to me that Julian is
>> insisting that it's okay to send arbitrary replies (e.g. once French,
>> once English at random) if there are no q-values. It has been very
>
> It is, according to the spec. If it hurts, don't do it (thus add qvalues).
>
>> clearly explained that this is highly confusing (in other words, bad for
>> interoperability). Even if the current spec allows this, it would be
>> good to have some text in the new spec that says that's a bad idea.
>
> We could also say that leaving the choice to the server might lead to
> different languages being picked in subsequent requests.
>
>> Otherwise, I'm fine with the above Note, except for a small nit:
>> Please change "including when they are both missing" to "including when
>> they are missing", because there may be more than two missing (or equal)
>> q-values.
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>
> Best regards, Julian

Proposed change: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/428/428.diff>.

This removes the new text about ordering, and adds the note below:

 >       Note: Some recipients treat language tags that have the same
 >       quality values (including when they are missing) to be listed in
 >       descending order of priority.  However, this behavior cannot be
 >       relied upon, and if their relative priority is important -- such
 >       as for consistent results for a sequence of requests -- it ought
 >       to be communicated by using different quality values.

Feedback appreciated, Julian