Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 24 January 2013 08:28 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 736D921F8552 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:28:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, 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 NIjl-VTjx97q for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:28:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7FE21F8442 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyI9J-0007T2-IZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:27:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:27:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyI9J-0007T2-IZ@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 1TyI9F-0007SF-93 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:27:01 +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 1TyI9E-0006UD-ND for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 08:27:01 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.16]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MQbf1-1USAx51r2b-00U5KZ for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:26:34 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2013 08:26:34 -0000
Received: from p5DD97AAA.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.1.100]) [93.217.122.170] by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2013 09:26:34 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19q1UlX4Zhq6Q3uJ0M7dNZ22P+WESoo33WIt8xnJ1 AxHs6gQpxNosCg
Message-ID: <5100F038.6050902@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:26:32 +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: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "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>
In-Reply-To: <E5B8C951-9C05-4CA4-8A17-2636FEF2A9E9@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.315, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyI9E-0006UD-ND 05eb02cd5efe3e78c75490e0bc2eea68
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5100F038.6050902@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16142
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 2013-01-24 02:17, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> So, does anyone have an issue with making ordering significant when there's no qvalue for *all* headers that use qvalues?
> ..

I still do, and I'd prefer we go back to what the spec has been saying 
for well over a decade.

What *real* problem are we solving with this change that justifies 
making current implementations broken?

Best regards, Julian