IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 18 July 2009 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448BF3A6B65 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.142
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.543, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NrE+PkORKTgf for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 154023A6948 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2009 18:17:25 -0000
Received: from p508FE471.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.228.113] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 18 Jul 2009 20:17:25 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+8GE1C2Ji8aBUHPc1spdNZuoJjaPdKmkG1CXEMUR sqtw3mSMJgbRvZ
Message-ID: <4A6211AC.3080707@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:17:16 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <48049274.3090501@gmx.de> <4A61B8B7.7030200@gmx.de> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <4A61F5C2.3050906@gmx.de> <20090718175918.GA3899@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090718175918.GA3899@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.65
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:18:20 -0000

John Cowan wrote:
> Julian Reschke scripsit:
> 
>> The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm that 
>> actually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember, we're 
>> not changing the protocol here). Did we pick the wrong one?
> 
> No, basic filtering is the RFC 2616 algorithm all right.  You might
> consider allowing HTTP servers to do lookup if basic filtering
> produces no results: Apache already does this.
> 
> Is there some reason why you aren't referring to BCP 47?

The spec does refer to BCP 47: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07.html#RFC4647>.

BR, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email