From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 5:17 PM
> 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.
Stop. If they configure their browser incorrectly, and omit Accept-Language
(as all too many do, that's a new feature after all!) the server works JUST FINE!
Only if they ask for a language, and can't get it, then they get the error.
> 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 ;-)
I trust you are right on this. Noted.
Bill
