Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics section 3.1.3.1 confusion

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 22 April 2013 04:11 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 5B7E921F8928 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.466
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.133, 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 FZL-S7P5W7nB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB1E21F86B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UU86A-00056Y-4r for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:11:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:11:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UU86A-00056Y-4r@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 1UU866-00055t-Ch for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:11:22 +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 1UU865-0007iM-K0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 04:11:22 +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 5E2D650A89; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:10:59 -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: <44E744236D325141AE8DDC88A45908AD0C447C@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:10:56 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4175F8F9-29AF-4352-94BB-50438C154199@mnot.net>
References: <44E744236D325141AE8DDC88A45908AD0C447C@TK5EX14MBXC264.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
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=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.400, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UU865-0007iM-K0 ac52111a591693335753cdd1620eb94d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics section 3.1.3.1 confusion
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4175F8F9-29AF-4352-94BB-50438C154199@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17457
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 Dave,

Recorded as Editorial:
  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/456

Cheers,


On 29/03/2013, at 5:26 AM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-3.1.3.1 says:
>>  HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and Content-Language fields.
>> 
>>    language-tag = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC5646], Section 2.1>
> 
> Section 3.1.3.1 defines a language tag by reference to RFC5646 section 2.1.
> 
> Per http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-22#section-5.3.5 
> the Accept-Language header, however, uses a language-range not a language-tag:
> 
>      Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ weight ] )
>      language-range  =
>                <language-range, defined in [RFC4647], Section 2.1>
> 
> Note the different reference, and following that reference we find the explicit statement that:
>    A basic language range differs from the language tags defined in
>    [RFC4646] only in that there is no requirement that it be "well-
>    formed" or be validated against the IANA Language Subtag Registry.
> 
> And of course RFC5646 obsoletes RFC4646 but doesn't change the relevant ABNF.
> 
> So the Accept-Language tag does not use the language-tag production, 
> it uses the looser language-range definition).
> 
> The text in section 3.1.3.1 is confusing because it can be misread to imply
> that Accept-Language uses the language-tag production.
> 
> Suggest:
>>  HTTP uses language tags within the Accept-Language and Content-Language fields.
>>  The Accept-Language field uses the looser language-range production defined in Section 5.2.5,
>>  whereas the Content-Language field uses the stricter language-tag production defined below.
>> 
>>    language-tag = <Language-Tag, defined in [RFC5646], Section 2.1>
> 
> -Dave
> 
> 

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