On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Joel Bernstein [2009-11-15 16:30]:
> > No no no! Allow the client and server to negotiate what content
> > to serve for the resource identified. As a URI to a resource
> > which may vary according to many dimensions,
> > /path/to/som
* Joel Bernstein [2009-11-15 16:30]:
> No no no! Allow the client and server to negotiate what content
> to serve for the resource identified. As a URI to a resource
> which may vary according to many dimensions,
> /path/to/some/content is fine.
>
> GET /path/to/content HTTP/1.1
> Accept-Language:
Hello!
why shouldn't you use domain as the part of the language? like
en.example.com, cn.example.com and something like that?
Thanks.
Because each sub-domain would require another SSL key (or a special
group SSL key that can be used with more subdomains.
Moreover, I don't see that great adv
From: "Fayland Lam"
why shouldn't you use domain as the part of the language? like
en.example.com, cn.example.com and something like that?
Thanks.
Because each sub-domain would require another SSL key (or a special group
SSL key that can be used with more subdomains.
Octavian
why shouldn't you use domain as the part of the language? like
en.example.com, cn.example.com and something like that?
Thanks.
Octavian Râsnita wrote:
From: "Bill Moseley"
What's your preferred approach to specifying a language tag in a URL? Is
there strong argument for one over the
