<quote>
This sounds to me like it _is_ an option to serve for example an
"en" variant to a client requesting "en-US" and im pretty sure
that this is how mod_negotiation of 1.3 behaves.
IMHO this should be the default behaviour in 2.0 as well and
not something the user should/can configure via ForceDefaultLanguage.
IMHO it's silly to reply with a 'not acceptable' response in such
a case.
BTW, for Germany you might use "de-DE" as a language extension
which is damn equal to "de".
</quote>
I don't think your interpretation is correct. (I had to read it through
several times, and I'm still not positive.) The "Language-Range" (from the
client) must EXACTLY MATCH
a "Language-Tag" or a prefix of a "Language-Tag" (from the server). So "en"
from the client can match "en-us" from the server, but if you flip "client"
and "server", this is no longer true.
If you look further down in that section, it says that clients shouldn't let
users do stupid things like including "de-DE" but not "de" in their
Accept-Language without warning them. Unfortunately, essentially all modern
clients seem to have ignored this.
I believe OtherBill's solution is a good compromise. It lets the current
misconfigured clients work, but also lets someone who knows about this stuff
configure their client in the way that the standard intends.
I think the intent of the standard was to allow things like "en-us,
fr;q=0.9, en;q=0.8" which is a reasonable (though probably not common)
language preference that is impossible to express if you interpret the
standard in your way.
And, by the way, I think that Bill's new directive should be set to "Full"
in httpd-std.conf in order to make things
work with the majority of clients who seem to be thinking the same way as
you.
Joshua.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
