RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

RFC 7231, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", June 2014

Source of RFC: httpbis (app)

Errata ID: 4734
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Alexey Blyshko
Date Reported: 2016-07-06
Rejected by: RFC Editor
Date Rejected: 2017-01-25

Section 5.3.5 says:

   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".

It should say:

   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


--VERIFIER NOTES--
Rejected per Mark Nottingham (chair of HTTPBIS WG):
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. (See BCP 47.)

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).

Report New Errata