Re: Is “fr, en; q=0.3” a valid Accept-Language value?

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Mon, 31 October 2016 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 5CE9D129463 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tqfpqySE3KD5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D585D1293EE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2016 18:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c11Q9-0004pL-Pp for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 01:29:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 01:29:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c11Q9-0004pL-Pp@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1c11Q5-0004ms-Hy for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 01:29:49 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1c11Pz-0006yH-DS for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 01:29:44 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.45.78]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 497F4E6EAA for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:12 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAHkN8V9RyAVprdWT2ZRDfDyCc+aj7Q6iJdGRr8N2m-qzEis7Kw@mail.gmail.com> <7135c8b0-9f02-04bb-5649-dbab1ba6313c@gmx.de> <CAHkN8V_gsHTNUoG4qEOPXHkyvWrZBRhWdORuntWyBg2PPNM2og@mail.gmail.com> <46cad21a-270b-76cd-9b43-11d66d49e116@gmx.de> <CAHkN8V-gPifMhXt76M5o+ty-A-gAjJvrL=Tt9h8xXW-0CwoX+Q@mail.gmail.com> <f11f9281-fd2a-444f-6ca3-8a60313b8f8b@gmx.de> <CAHkN8V9DTu=xVft3ZaFo6kYAwqQsFDZc1ZZSfvuiG+bPMnwNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <42a785da-8417-654c-afd5-6dc977520bc5@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:29:08 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHkN8V9DTu=xVft3ZaFo6kYAwqQsFDZc1ZZSfvuiG+bPMnwNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.271, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c11Pz-0006yH-DS ca7025af0c5c6a546c7b64e51b5c5375
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IElzIOKAnGZyLCBlbjsgcT0wLjPigJ0gYSB2YWxpZCBBY2NlcHQt?= =?UTF-8?Q?Language_value=3f?=
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/42a785da-8417-654c-afd5-6dc977520bc5@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32744
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 31/10/2016 12:15 a.m., Samuel Williams wrote:
> Thanks Julian, yes I wondered if that was how it was being explained.
> It might be the wording of the sentence preceding the table:
> 
>> would cause the following values to be associated:
> 
> It might be clearer if it were "could be used to compute the following
> quality values:"
> 

It is not computing quality values. The q values are provided by the
client. It is simply associating those q= values with the possible
response types.

Like so:
1) take the request Accept list
2a) sort by q= value
2b) drop explicit types that cannot be produced (ie xml/tar)
3) output the response for type at the front of the list


If you are writing a client to produce Accept lists, then you should do
the sorting step when generating the request so as to get faster
responses from the server.

Amos