Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4734)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 03:48:07 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7231,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7231&eid=4734

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alexey Blyshko <[email-masked]>

Section: 5.3.5.

Original Text
-------------
   The "Accept-Language" header field can be used by user agents to
   indicate the set of natural languages that are preferred in the
   response.  Language tags are defined in Section 3.1.3.1.

     Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ weight ] )
     language-range  =
               <language-range, see [RFC4647], Section 2.1>

   Each language-range can be given an associated quality value
   representing an estimate of the user's preference for the languages
   specified by that range, as defined in Section 5.3.1.  For example,

     Accept-Language: da, en-gb;q=0.8, en;q=0.7

   would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and
   other types of English".

Corrected Text
--------------
   The "Accept-Language" header field can be used by user agents to
   indicate the set of natural languages that are preferred in the
   response.  Language tags are defined in Section 3.1.3.1.

     Accept-Language = 1#( language-range [ weight ] )
     language-range  =
               <language-range, see [RFC5646], Section 2.1>

   Each language-range can be given an associated quality value
   representing an estimate of the user's preference for the languages
   specified by that range, as defined in Section 5.3.1.  For example,

     Accept-Language: da, en-GB;q=0.8, en;q=0.7

   would mean: "I prefer Danish, but will accept British English and
   other types of English".

Notes
-----
RFC4647 -> RFC5646
en-gb      -> en-GB

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7231 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:52:51 +0200

On 06.07.2016 12:48, RFC Errata System wrote:
> ...

As far as I can tell, language-range is defined in RFC 4647, not in RFC 
5646. So the change as proposed seems to be incorrect.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 20:04:54 +0900

> 5646. So the change as proposed seems to be incorrect.

Yes indeed, see e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47.

The other change, from 'en-gb' to 'en-GB', may be seen as a tiny 
stylistic improvement (because the 'canonical' way to write country 
codes in language tags is upper case), but is not at all required 
(because language tags are case-insensitive).

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:00:47 +1000

Sounds like REJECTED, then.

> On 6 Jul 2016, at 9:04 PM, Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The other change, from 'en-gb' to 'en-GB', may be seen as a tiny stylistic improvement (because the 'canonical' way to write country codes in language tags is upper case), but is not at all required (because language tags are case-insensitive).
> 
> Regards,    Martin.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/