Re: p2: Accept-Language missing, empty or no match

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 01 May 2013 00:20 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 BBC1121F86C3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FFIkL71sbqEq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B09A21F86EA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXKla-0000yG-1g for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 00:19:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 00:19:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXKla-0000yG-1g@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 1UXKlQ-0000xX-W4 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 00:19:17 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UXKlP-00056M-U8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 00:19:16 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B827950A84; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:18:53 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <sn5vn8pe3hins3oeghba9qrkcooustfmg8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 10:18:51 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <21D17E62-229B-41E2-A7E5-9623A52DE3C2@mnot.net>
References: <8741FE69-C013-4853-A9A3-6321A18E56EA@mnot.net> <2896D8B9-399D-4F68-9BC1-9EFDB893C2BE@mnot.net> <sn5vn8pe3hins3oeghba9qrkcooustfmg8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.363, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UXKlP-00056M-U8 544f30d9af483b8fd8f8ed9db5d1eedd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: Accept-Language missing, empty or no match
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/21D17E62-229B-41E2-A7E5-9623A52DE3C2@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17740
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>

Good point. 

how about:

"""
A request without any Accept-Language header field implies that the user agent will accept any language in response. If an Accept-Language header field is present in a request and none of the available representations for the response have a language tag that is listed as acceptable, the origin server MAY either disregard the Accept header field by treating the response as if it is not subject to content negotiation, or honor the Accept header field by sending a 406 (Not Acceptable) response. However, the latter is not encouraged, as doing so can prevent users from accessing content that they might be able to use (with translation software, for example).
"""

On 30/04/2013, at 8:07 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Anyone disagree with adding similar text to Accept-Language? If not, I'll mark for incorporation.
> 
> I certainly disagree with adding text suggesting it's as good an idea to
> respond with 406 due to Accept-Language as it is to respond with 406 due
> to Accept, Accept-Charset, or Accept-Encoding, the latter all being ca-
> pabilities of the user agent, while Accept-Language refers to the user's
> education. Back in the day I had to add `*` to my Accept-Language header
> to avoid this failure case, which was indeed present on several sites. I
> could probably live with noting 406 is okay "somehow", but the text must
> be very different from the text for the other headers.
> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

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