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

Changeset 2163


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2013-01-25 05:29:05 (21 months ago)
Author:
fielding@gbiv.com
Message:

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

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

Legend:

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

    r2162 r2163  
    20052005      </p> 
    20062006      <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 
    20122014         "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>. 
    20132015      </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 linguistic 
     2016      <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 
    20152017         preferences of the user in every request (<a href="#fingerprinting" title="Browser Fingerprinting">Section&nbsp;9.6</a>). 
    20162018      </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 linguistic 
     2019      <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 
    20182020         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. 
    20192021      </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">  
    20212023         <p> <b>Note:</b> User agents ought to provide guidance to users when setting a preference, since users are rarely familiar with the details 
    20222024            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  
    23312331<t> 
    23322332   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. 
    23362342   Additional discussion of language priority lists can be found in 
    23372343   <xref target="RFC4647" x:sec="2.3" x:fmt="of"/>. 
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.