[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 16:19 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 70BB13A695D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:19:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.012
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.413, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FM7OldPb-0C8 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3932E3A6A9F for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2009 16:18:19 -0000
Received: from p508FE471.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO []) [] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 18 Jul 2009 18:18:19 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ncrEpZgTnsttygIru0nySySjx9yncV/HiPqFWzV myyc1rdYUlX3FJ
Message-ID: <4A61F5C2.3050906@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:18:10 +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>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F@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: 0.57
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: [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 16:19:37 -0000

Phillips, Addison wrote:
> ...
> One additional issue related to language tags (you don't appear to be tracking it separately). I don't think that the current incarnation of section 5.4 (Accept-Language) is quite right. In particular, the Basic Filtering algorithm is made normative as the language negotiation strategy. I tend to find the Lookup algorithm a better/more common choice, personally, and others might make different choices, depending on the application. I think this text should be made more dependent on the text in 4647, rather than trying to recreate it in a shorter form. If HTTP-WG feels that an algorithm must be made normative, then my personal opinion is that it should be Lookup, not Filtering.
> ...

Hi Addison,

actually we *do* track this separately; the issue is 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/113>, and we thought 
we were done with it almost a year ago. See discussion around 

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?

BR, Julian