IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Ltru] Issue 181 (Accept-Language: which RFC4647 filtering?")

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 19 July 2009 12:59 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 BFA2F3A6A6D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.849, 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 LLB3DXLzaQyT for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 726673A6A31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Jul 2009 12:59:44 -0000
Received: from p508FBDCF.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.189.207] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 19 Jul 2009 14:59:44 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18Bk8Mjn6cBG21bQAnsyyA9Iq1ppVWc2SX3r3Qyc2 PW9DEcRhMAMYUp
Message-ID: <4A6318B7.4040605@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:59:35 +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: 0.67
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [Ltru] Issue 181 (Accept-Language: which RFC4647 filtering?")
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:59:47 -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.
> ...

Now tracked as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/181>.

BR, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email