Re: (ACCEPT*) Last call on draft text for Accept headers
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Sat, 6 Apr 1996 17:05:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Koen Holtman:
>Tim Greenwood:
[...]
>>The proposal was intended not as a simplification, but as a
>>clarification. Your comment is correct, my proposal would have
>>excluded a match that should be allowed. The text in 10.4 should
>>still be rewritten to use the syntax defined in 3.10. The current
>>text uses the term 'a prefix' which is not defined.
>
>Ah, so _that_ is the problem. I assumed that 'prefix' was standard
>computing terminology, but apparantly it is not. (Prefix means
>"initial part of a string".) I'll see if I can find an alternative
>wording.
OK, here is what I have come up with: the old sentence
A language-range matches a language-tag if it exactly equals the tag,
or if it is a prefix of the tag such that the first tag character
following the prefix is "-".
is replaced with
A language-range matches a language-tag if it exactly equals the
tag, or if it exactly equals a prefix (a sub-sequence starting at
the first character) of the tag such that the first tag character
following the prefix is "-".
I also tried to write text which completely avoided the use of the
word `prefix', but that text turned out to be less intelligible.
I will assume that this change solves the problem until I hear
otherwise.
On a related note: I'm currently also working with Jim Gettys to
simplify a few sentences in the proposed Accept header draft text. I
will post a revised version once we are finished.
Koen.