Re: A broken browser
Koen Holtman (koen@win.tue.nl)
Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:11:07 +0100 (MET)
Martin J. Duerst:
>
[...]
>I'll take these issues first. For Accept-Language, RFC2068 says
>explicitly what q=0 means:
[...]
>This clearly means that q=0 means NOT ACCEPTABLE. Whether this
>has to be interpreted as being a special case for Accept-Language,
>or an example of a general principle, is beyond my knowledge
>of the RFC and its creation process.
The q=0 for Accept-Language is to be interpreted as an example of a general
principle. Earlier versions of the document (the 00 and 01 internet drafts I
believe) had a section which said that the server should give a `none
acceptable' error message if it only had variants with q=0.
[...]
>To give an example, we have the following situation:
>
>Accept-Language Document Match?
>language-range language-tag
>
>en en YES
>en-us en-us YES
>en en-us YES
>en-us en NO?!
>en-us en-uk NO?!
>
>
>The idea is that Accept-Language defines language-ranges,
>whereas the documents will be tagged exactly. I don't know
>exactly how the group arrived at this asymmetry,
If I recall correctly, en-us does not match en-uk because it need not in
general be true that two languages tagged a-x and a-y are mutually
comprehensible. I don't know if there are actual examples of such tags a-x
and a-y in the registry now, but there could be in future, and we wanted
HTTP to be prepared for that.
>Regards, Martin.
Koen.