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

[Tobias Burnus]

Hello,

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.

Tobias