Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Script updating archive at 2024-08-11T00:23:27Z. [ci skip]
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
ID Bot committed Aug 11, 2024
1 parent 2bb5c65 commit c293184
Showing 1 changed file with 18 additions and 3 deletions.
21 changes: 18 additions & 3 deletions archive.json
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
{
"magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
"timestamp": "2024-08-08T00:20:48.474040+00:00",
"timestamp": "2024-08-11T00:23:15.306726+00:00",
"repo": "mnot/I-D",
"labels": [
{
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -9514,9 +9514,24 @@
"labels": [],
"body": "For the available hints like AvailLanguage, I have a couple of questions to confirm: \r\n\r\n1. when the specs says \"unrecognised Parameters on Structured Fields are ignored and therefore do not trigger this fallback\", does it mean that e.g. `en, zh;ddd, ja;dd` should result in `en, zh, ja`, also `en, zh;d;c` and `en, zh;d=?0` and `en;d=1.0, zh` should be treated the same as `en, zh`? \r\n\r\n3. whether multiple default setting allows or be ignored? it's not clear whether `en, zh;d, ja;d ` should actually be rejected or be treated the same was as `en, zh;d, ja` or as `en, zh;d`. ",
"createdAt": "2024-07-15T20:04:20Z",
"updatedAt": "2024-07-15T20:04:20Z",
"updatedAt": "2024-08-10T02:12:50Z",
"closedAt": null,
"comments": []
"comments": [
{
"author": "recvfrom",
"authorAssociation": "NONE",
"body": "Any thoughts on this? This came up in a Chromium code review and it'd be helpful to have a clarification to ensure that we've implemented parsing of the AvailLanguage header correctly. Thanks!\r\n\r\nFor reference: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/5703436/comment/eac735bf_760f79bd/",
"createdAt": "2024-08-09T14:16:16Z",
"updatedAt": "2024-08-09T14:18:10Z"
},
{
"author": "mnot",
"authorAssociation": "OWNER",
"body": "The text in the spec needs some more nuance, but unrecognised Parameters on `Avail-Language` should indeed be ignored. If `d` has a non-Boolean value, we'll need to define (probably most sensible to ignore those too).\r\n\r\nFor multiple `d`, I'm inclined to say either first one wins, or it means the entire field should be ignored - thoughts?\r\n\r\n",
"createdAt": "2024-08-10T02:12:49Z",
"updatedAt": "2024-08-10T02:12:49Z"
}
]
}
],
"pulls": [
Expand Down

0 comments on commit c293184

Please sign in to comment.