On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:55:47 +0100, Andrew Snare
<ASnare(_at_)allshare(_dot_)nl> 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
