[Vorbis] Can't access www.xiph.org from Japan

[Ian Malone]

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo wrote:
> Christopher Harrington wrote:
> 
>> His suggested approach is a deviation from standards that are designed 
>> to make the internet a predictable and well-defined place to operate. 
>> When we deviate from the standards, we solve one problem, and cause 
>> two more. Now, web browsers that are designed or configured to request 
>> only a specific language will now receive a different, wrong language. 
> 
> 
> Have you actually read the standards you are talking about here, or do 
> you only write this because you have the urge to say something? 
> According to the HTTP RFC, the Accept-Language defines a list of 
> "preferred" languages and it is especially noted, that the server 
> language selection algorithms should consider that the requester may not 
> be familiar with the language matching techniques used and his browser 
> configuration.
> 

It also suggests that the particular problem of users not being
familiar with language matching techniques is one for the UA to
solve.  I do get the feeling that while the RFC would like people
to be specific (en-gb;q=1.0, en;q=0.9 etc.), the section I quoted
on the 406 warning suggests that the authors realise that it might
be more meaningful to serve content (the user will understand the
consequences, even if they aren't aware of the underlying
mechanism).  Since there appears to be only English content on
xiph, there is no meaningful choice the 406 can offer the user
(other than continue or leave, which the English page does
implicitly).

> Actually, I read three languages at a native level and two more with 
> some more effort, which are not listed in my browsers language 
> preferences. I access and read web pages in at least one of these 
> languages on a daily basis and I've _never_ experienced that a web 
> server rejects my request, telling me that I have to reconfigure my 
> browser to access the resource.
> 

This is not what 406 does, it tells you it can't satisfy the
request you have made and presents you with alternatives (which
is what xiph.org does, although 'alternative' is stretching the
definition).  The pages you access daily are either; unaware of
everything we're talking about or have decided to present
content rather than the warning (possibly because they do not
supply alternative formats).  I don't think ignoring standards
justifies anything by itself; I do think that making a 'least
surprise' choice is often worthwhile.

-- 
imalone