IETF Logo Mail Archive

#428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 16 January 2013 15:58 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 4558D21F8AA8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:58:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.969
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.630, 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 UmDhc-NEZcv6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6127621F8A6C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 07:58:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TvVM3-0007H0-B8 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:56:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:56:43 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TvVM3-0007H0-B8@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 1TvVM0-0007GL-GV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:56:40 +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 1TvVLz-0000IM-Jr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:56:40 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lvegk-1SsROr1ggm-017Qxu for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:56:13 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2013 15:56:13 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 16 Jan 2013 16:56:13 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18rgpAC4NMrCuNkAtuHWa1KEzgYwH7jfuolkEdpqa tyaOSoi3CgxXx1
Message-ID: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:56:08 +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: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TvVLz-0000IM-Jr 563ea217903d071e528e97f904372b2c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/15907
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>

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.

I believe this change should be backed out.

Best regards, Julian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email