* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Changeset 2119


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2013-01-13 02:22:41 (2 years ago)
Author:
fielding@gbiv.com
Message:

Accept-Language: clean up prose and note descending order of priority for equal weights (as defined in RFC4647 and original HTTP); partly addresses #426

Location:
draft-ietf-httpbis/latest
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.html

    r2118 r2119  
    19991999      </p> 
    20002000      <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 
    20102009         preferences of the user in every request (<a href="#fingerprinting" title="Browser Fingerprinting">Section&nbsp;9.6</a>). 
    20112010      </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 choice 
    2013          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 not 
    2017             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 best matching 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. 
    20202019         </p>  
    20212020      </div> 
  • draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p2-semantics.xml

    r2118 r2119  
    23202320<t> 
    23212321   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"/>. 
    23232327</t> 
    23242328<t> 
    23252329   For matching, <xref target="RFC4647" x:sec="3" x:fmt="of"/> defines  
    23262330   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> 
    23362336<t> 
    23372337   It might be contrary to the privacy expectations of the user to send 
     
    23402340</t> 
    23412341<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. 
    23472346</t> 
    23482347<x:note> 
    23492348  <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. 
    23582355  </t> 
    23592356</x:note> 
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.