Changeset 2119 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Timestamp:
- 13/01/13 10:22:41 (10 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Files:
-
- 2 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html
r2118 r2119 1999 1999 </p> 2000 2000 <div id="rfc.figure.u.33"></div><pre class="text"> Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7 2001 </pre><p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.5">would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and other types of English". (See also <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-2.3">Section 2.3</a> of <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.2"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>) 2002 </p> 2003 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.6">For matching, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3">Section 3</a> of <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.3"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a> defines several matching schemes. Implementations can offer the most appropriate matching scheme for their requirements. 2004 </p> 2005 <div class="note" id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.7"> 2006 <p> <b>Note:</b> The "Basic Filtering" scheme (<a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.4"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.3.1">Section 3.3.1</a>) is identical to the matching scheme that was previously defined in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.4">Section 14.4</a> of <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>. 2007 </p> 2008 </div> 2009 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.8">It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send an Accept-Language header field with the complete linguistic 2001 </pre><p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.5">would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and other types of English". If no quality values are assigned 2002 or multiple language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages are listed in descending order 2003 of priority. Additional discussion of language priority lists can be found in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-2.3">Section 2.3</a> of <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.2"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>. 2004 </p> 2005 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.6">For matching, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3">Section 3</a> of <a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.3"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a> defines several matching schemes. Implementations can offer the most appropriate matching scheme for their requirements. The 2006 "Basic Filtering" scheme (<a href="#RFC4647" id="rfc.xref.RFC4647.4"><cite title="Matching of Language Tags">[RFC4647]</cite></a>, <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647#section-3.3.1">Section 3.3.1</a>) is identical to the matching scheme that was previously defined for HTTP in <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.4">Section 14.4</a> of <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>. 2007 </p> 2008 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.7">It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send an Accept-Language header field with the complete linguistic 2010 2009 preferences of the user in every request (<a href="#fingerprinting" title="Browser Fingerprinting">Section 9.6</a>). 2011 2010 </p> 2012 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p. 9">As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is recommended that client applications make the choice2013 of linguistic preference available to the user. If the choice is not made available, then the Accept-Language header field <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> be given in the request.2014 </p> 2015 <div class="note" id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p. 10">2016 <p> <b>Note:</b> When making the choice of linguistic preference available to the user, we remind implementers of the fact that users are not2017 familiar with the details of language matching as described above, and ought to be provided appropriate guidance. As an example,2018 users might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any kind of English document if British English is not available.2019 A user agent might suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the bestmatching behavior.2011 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.8">Since intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, user agents need to allow user control over the linguistic 2012 preference. A user agent that does not provide such control to the user <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> send an Accept-Language header field. 2013 </p> 2014 <div class="note" id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.9"> 2015 <p> <b>Note:</b> User agents ought to provide guidance to users when setting a preference, since users are rarely familiar with the details 2016 of language matching as described above. For example, users might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any 2017 kind of English document if British English is not available. A user agent might suggest, in such a case, to add "en" to the 2018 list for better matching behavior. 2020 2019 </p> 2021 2020 </div> -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml
r2118 r2119 2320 2320 <t> 2321 2321 would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and 2322 other types of English". (See also <xref target="RFC4647" x:sec="2.3" x:fmt="of"/>) 2322 other types of English". If no quality values are assigned or multiple 2323 language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted 2324 languages are listed in descending order of priority. 2325 Additional discussion of language priority lists can be found in 2326 <xref target="RFC4647" x:sec="2.3" x:fmt="of"/>. 2323 2327 </t> 2324 2328 <t> 2325 2329 For matching, <xref target="RFC4647" x:sec="3" x:fmt="of"/> defines 2326 2330 several matching schemes. Implementations can offer the most appropriate 2327 matching scheme for their requirements. 2328 </t> 2329 <x:note> 2330 <t> 2331 &Note; The "Basic Filtering" scheme (<xref target="RFC4647" 2332 x:fmt="," x:sec="3.3.1"/>) is identical to the matching scheme that was 2333 previously defined in <xref target="RFC2616" x:fmt="of" x:sec="14.4"/>. 2334 </t> 2335 </x:note> 2331 matching scheme for their requirements. The "Basic Filtering" scheme 2332 (<xref target="RFC4647" x:fmt="," x:sec="3.3.1"/>) is identical to the 2333 matching scheme that was previously defined for HTTP in 2334 <xref target="RFC2616" x:fmt="of" x:sec="14.4"/>. 2335 </t> 2336 2336 <t> 2337 2337 It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send … … 2340 2340 </t> 2341 2341 <t> 2342 As intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, it is 2343 recommended that client applications make the choice of linguistic 2344 preference available to the user. If the choice is not made 2345 available, then the Accept-Language header field &MUST-NOT; be given in 2346 the request. 2342 Since intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, 2343 user agents need to allow user control over the linguistic preference. 2344 A user agent that does not provide such control to the user &MUST-NOT; 2345 send an Accept-Language header field. 2347 2346 </t> 2348 2347 <x:note> 2349 2348 <t> 2350 &Note; When making the choice of linguistic preference available to 2351 the user, we remind implementers of the fact that users are not 2352 familiar with the details of language matching as described above, 2353 and ought to be provided appropriate guidance. As an example, users 2354 might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any 2355 kind of English document if British English is not available. A 2356 user agent might suggest in such a case to add "en" to get the 2357 best matching behavior. 2349 &Note; User agents ought to provide guidance to users when setting a 2350 preference, since users are rarely familiar with the details of language 2351 matching as described above. For example, users might assume that on 2352 selecting "en-gb", they will be served any kind of English document if 2353 British English is not available. A user agent might suggest, in such a 2354 case, to add "en" to the list for better matching behavior. 2358 2355 </t> 2359 2356 </x:note>
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.