[Ltru] Issue 181, was: Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 27 July 2009 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A843D3A63EB for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OjvC6DcX21oF for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 724553A6C1E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2009 11:46:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (EHLO []) [] by mail.gmx.net (mp045) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2009 13:46:34 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18UMcRrwZsU0SJOSia3tqbIXkFBVskS874c5GpTVR rkq8lytXNscC0L
Message-ID: <4A6D9396.5020506@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:46:30 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv: Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <48049274.3090501@gmx.de> <4A61B8B7.7030200@gmx.de> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <4A61F5C2.3050906@gmx.de> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843BEE@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843BEE@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.64
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [Ltru] Issue 181, was: 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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:46:45 -0000

Phillips, Addison wrote:
>> 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?
> I responded in my response to John Cowan. I think I would want to reopen this issue. Compatibility is a Good Thing, but as I said, I think language negotiation has evolved somewhat and you could incorporate more of 4647 rather than strictly requiring Basic Filtering.
> ...


so I had a look at RFC 4647 and I'm totally open to allow more than 
Basic Filtering; but I'm not sure about what exactly we want to say...

- require to try Basic Filtering First, but allow to fall back to Lookup 
when nothing is returned?

- just stay point to Section 3.1 and leave it to the implementer?

Best regards, Julian