[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
To: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg at w3.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:17:16 +0200
In-reply-to: <20090718175918.GA3899 at mercury.ccil.org>
References: <48037FF9.9030103 at gmx.de> <48049274.3090501 at gmx.de> <4A61B8B7.7030200 at gmx.de> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F at EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <4A61F5C2.3050906 at gmx.de> <20090718175918.GA3899 at mercury.ccil.org>

John Cowan wrote:

Julian Reschke scripsit:
The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm thatactually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember, we'renot 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

References:
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
  - From: Phillips, Addison
- [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
  - From: John Cowan

Prev by Date: Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
Next by Date: Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
Previous by thread: Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
Next by thread: Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.