[Ltru] status of RFC 3066 or RFC 3066bis in relation to HTTP Accept-Language

[Peter Constable]

> From: mrc at pangtzu.panda.com [mailto:mrc at pangtzu.panda.com] On Behalf
Of Mark
> Crispin


> Peter, I think that you and I are loudly agreeing.  The point is that
> 3066bis, which creates specifics, doesn't break 1766 software which
did
> not (could not) know about such specifics.
> 
> Therefore there is no problem.

Yes. I had a generic question about versioning for IETF specs, for which
I got a somewhat vague answer; but I was also concerned about a specific
instance of versioning, and for that I figured out an appropriate
answer.

I've got someone asking me about Accept-Language, and when writing my
prior response, I realized that probably underlying their question was a
concern based on a wrong understanding of RFC 1766 -- thinking that
Accept-Language can't pass (e.g.) az-Cyrl-AZ because (in their mistaken
understanding) RFC 1766 doesn't allow such a tag because of the script
subtag. So, my response to them is, even though 2616 references 1766,
Accept-Language most certainly can -- and likely will -- past a tag like
az-Cyrl-AZ.



Peter Constable