bug 258246: RFC: Accept language header: 'en-gb' and matching

Tobias Burnus tobias.burnus at physik.fu-berlin.de
Tue Sep 14 08:42:53 UTC 2004


Gervase Markham wrote:

> Tobias Burnus wrote:
>> The question is: Should we change the behaviour of Bugzilla? That is
>> 'en-gb' should match 'en' (and (?) 'en-*'?). Should this be optional? 
>> Or what is
>> the right (TM) way to proceed?
> There certainly shouldn't be an option. We should pick the best 
> algorithm that works with what's out there and use it.

Well, in principle our algorithm is according to the spec and therefore 
already the best.

> My Mozilla has Accept-Language: en-us, en;q=0.5. Which isn't accurate, 
> but then I don't install UK language packs. It does however give both 
> en-xx and en. Does e.g. the German language pack not change it to 
> de-de,de;q=0.5?

Well, I use the English version of Mozilla with the manual setting 
"de-de","en-gb","fr-fr" and it correctly sends 
de-de,en-gb;q=0.7,fr-fr;q=0.3. Mozilla didn't asked me whether I would 
like to have de/en/fr as well. (And I heard that Mozilla 'de-at' sets 
only "de-at" and not "de-de", but I haven't checked it myself.)

> Whatever, I think that if someone sends de-de and we don't have a 
> de-de but do have a de, we should certainly match that rather than 
> failing or falling back to the default. Makes perfect sense.

i.e. de => ./de-*/, de-de => ./de/ and (of cause) de-de => ./de-de/ and 
de => ./de/ ?

> In the Chinese case, they all read the same thing - it's the 
> pronunciation which is different between Mandarin and Cantonese. 
> (There may well be a language where your point holds, but Chinese is 
> not it. :-) 

Well, then there are also the long and the short signs 
(traditional/simplified), I frankly don't know in how far they pose 
problems, but I'd expect that most Chinese prefer Chinese to English 
independed of the kind of signs.


More information about the developers mailing list