On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > The best thing would be to expose the variants in the CGI/SSI environment
> > so that the end user could make an appropriate ErrorDocument. I don't
> > think the server should get involved in translations.
>
> "Could make" and must are two different meanings. And yes, this is the project
> you and Lars are discussing, no :-? Easily adapted :)
Sure, but at the moment this can't be done because there is no way to
access the available variant list through CGI/SSI.
>
> That's what LanguagePriority already is. My only suggestion is to use it in
> lieu of "no acceptable variant" iff there are no acceptable variants and the
> user had expressed a preference. By default, this option would be disabled.
>
> Maybe call it ForceAcceptableLanguage (?)
Sure, that sounds fine.
My main concern is that something be done so that we don't wind up in a
worse position than before regarding the "no acceptable variant" issue.
As I understand it, as the code stands now, there is no way to avoid that
error message. In my opinion, that makes negotiation useless for "real"
websites, given the real-world state of browser configurations. I would
therefore consider ForceAcceptableLanguage to be a show-stopper
requirement, and the improved errordocument capability highly important
(though not essential). Of course, I'm not volunteering to write the
code, so feel free to ignore me ;-)
Joshua.
