Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 24 January 2013 05:58 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 967A021F84E8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:58:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.295
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.295 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, 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 imIkdqNMiE92 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE65B21F8503 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:58:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyFno-0000Fw-35 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:56:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:56:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyFno-0000Fw-35@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TyFnj-0000FG-Cp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:56:39 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1TyFni-0006ld-LL for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 05:56:39 +0000
Received: from [100.77.30.84] (unknown [1.154.226.93]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0C90822E1F4; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:56:15 -0500 (EST)
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <424D5D15-6D83-45D7-A957-DE19D30BAF7A@gbiv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B738275-3428-489C-B25D-CF1883D867B3@mnot.net>
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A523)
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:56:10 +1100
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
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: MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TyFni-0006ld-LL e418d178c49b1c3abfb32600e1231114
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3B738275-3428-489C-B25D-CF1883D867B3@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16140
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>

What about reworking the text to turn it into a note about implementation behavior?

As an aside, looking at those sections again made it apparent we're re-specifying preference selection a number of times in the accept-* headers, each slightly different. 

I realise that they *are* slightly different, but it's not very apparent to readers; it reminds me of the repetition we got rid of in the caching section. 

Would it be possible to explain it once, reference it from each section, and then point out the differences?

Sent from my iPhone

On 24/01/2013, at 4:40 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't clear.  There is no code out there today that would
> correspond to such a change.  I don't like making changes to HTTP
> just for the sake of imaginary consistency of definitions.
> Making them for the sake of consistency with implementations is fine.
> 
> If it is a choice, I'd rather remove the line from Accept-Language
> than introduce new (unproven) things to Accept.
> 
> ....Roy
>