Changeset 2163 for draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Timestamp:
- 25/01/13 13:29:05 (10 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
- Files:
-
- 2 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html
r2162 r2163 2005 2005 </p> 2006 2006 <div id="rfc.figure.u.33"></div><pre class="text"> Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7 2007 </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 2008 or multiple language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages are listed in descending order 2009 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>. 2010 </p> 2011 <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 2007 </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".</p> 2008 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.6">Note that some recipients treat the order in which language tags are listed as an indication of descending priority, particularly 2009 for tags that are assigned equal quality values (no value is the same as q=1). However, this behavior cannot be relied upon. 2010 For consistency and to maximize interoperability, many user agents assign each language tag a unique quality value while also 2011 listing them in order of decreasing quality. 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>. 2012 </p> 2013 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.7">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 2012 2014 "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>. 2013 2015 </p> 2014 <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 linguistic2016 <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 2015 2017 preferences of the user in every request (<a href="#fingerprinting" title="Browser Fingerprinting">Section 9.6</a>). 2016 2018 </p> 2017 <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 linguistic2019 <p id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.9">Since intelligibility is highly dependent on the individual user, user agents need to allow user control over the linguistic 2018 2020 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. 2019 2021 </p> 2020 <div class="note" id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p. 9">2022 <div class="note" id="rfc.section.5.3.5.p.10"> 2021 2023 <p> <b>Note:</b> User agents ought to provide guidance to users when setting a preference, since users are rarely familiar with the details 2022 2024 of language matching as described above. For example, users might assume that on selecting "en-gb", they will be served any -
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml
r2162 r2163 2331 2331 <t> 2332 2332 would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and 2333 other types of English". If no quality values are assigned or multiple 2334 language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted 2335 languages are listed in descending order of priority. 2333 other types of English". 2334 </t> 2335 <t> 2336 Note that some recipients treat the order in which language tags are listed 2337 as an indication of descending priority, particularly for tags that are 2338 assigned equal quality values (no value is the same as q=1). However, this 2339 behavior cannot be relied upon. For consistency and to maximize 2340 interoperability, many user agents assign each language tag a unique 2341 quality value while also listing them in order of decreasing quality. 2336 2342 Additional discussion of language priority lists can be found in 2337 2343 <xref target="RFC4647" x:sec="2.3" x:fmt="of"/>.
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.