Re: [fwd] Re: [rt-devel] Language detection bug (from: [email protected])

>>>>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:55:47 +0100, Andrew Snare <[email protected]> said:

 >> Incidentally, one that that Locale::Maketext does do, is the
 >> reverse: if a user accepts en-ca, Locale::Maketext will say "OK, I
 >> can also just give then en.pm".  That is, this accept list:
 >> Accept-Language: en-CA, es-MX
 >> is treated as if it were really:
 >> Accept-Language: en-CA, es-MX, en, es
 >> 
 >> I suppose I could have easly made it instead work so it would
 >> instead read it as:
 >> Accept-Language: en-CA, en, es-MX, es
 >> I'm not particularly attached to either way; I bet there's
 >> theoretical and practical arguments both ways.  Does anyone have a
 >> preference?  It's all negotiable.

  > This is arguably wrong. I understand why it's done, and admittedly
  > there's nothing explicitly saying it's wrong in the RFC. However, the
  > prefix-rule does appear to be one-way. In logic terms, the prefix rule
  > appears to mean something like:
  >          xx -> xx-*

  > That is, xx implies that xx-* is acceptable. However, the reverse
  > implication is not explicitly stated: xx-* does not imply that xx is
  > acceptable.

In practice you will irritate too many users with your interpretation
of the specs (however, I do read them the same way as you). In my
experience many people choose de-at OR de-ch OR de-de in their
language preference and expect that they will get pages in German.

So I think, Sean got it right. That's better than the specs.

-- 
andreas