Opened 7 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#428 closed design (fixed)

Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

Reported by: julian.reschke@… Owned by:
Priority: normal Milestone: 22
Component: p2-semantics Severity: In WG Last Call
Keywords: Cc:

Description

With changeset [2119], the spec now says:

"If no quality values are assigned or multiple language tags have been assigned the same quality, the same-weighted languages are listed in descending order of priority."

This is a change from both RFC 2068 and RFC 2616 which we *did* discuss back in the thread starting with <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2011OctDec/0223.html>; back then we decided not to make this change because we know of implementations ignoring the ordering, and no convincing argument was given for making the ordering significant.

I believe this change should be backed out.

Attachments (1)

428.diff (1.2 KB) - added by julian.reschke@… 7 years ago.
Proposed patch

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (9)

comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • origin set to http://www.w3.org/mid/50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de

comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Severity changed from Active WG Document to In WG Last Call

Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

Proposed patch

comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by fielding@…

From [2163]:

reduce Accept-Language priority to a note about how some recipients treat the list as ordered and how user agents adjust to that by sending both distinct qvalues and list them in descending order; addresses #428

comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by fielding@…

I committed

Note that some recipients treat the order in which language tags are listed as an indication of descending priority, particularly for tags that are assigned equal quality values (no value is the same as q=1). However, this behavior cannot be relied upon. For consistency and to maximize interoperability, many user agents assign each language tag a unique quality value while also listing them in order of decreasing quality. Additional discussion of language priority lists can be found in Section 2.3 of [RFC4647].

Julian, if that is sufficient, please close this issue.

comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by fielding@…

  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 22

comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by julian.reschke@…

  • Resolution set to incorporated
  • Status changed from new to closed

Works for me.

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution incorporated deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.