W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: relative weights of different Accept-* headers in content negotiation

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:44:22 +1200
Message-ID: <4A1CB716.4030802@qbik.com>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Brian Smith wrote:
>> So it's a shared cache scenario.  It can't be legal to send gzipped
>> content to a UA that didn't advertise support for it, so the proxy
>> therefore must consider Accept-* headers.
> Caches do not need to interpret Accept-* headers; that is why Accept-*
> headers are not mentioned at all in Part 6 (except for obscure case of
> determining the language to use for messages in Warning headers).
OK.  That seems counter-intuitive, so it could be worth putting an 
explanatory note to that effect in Part 6 somewhere.



> See the definitions of the Accept-* headers. For example, "If no
> Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY assume that
> the client will accept any content coding." There are actually a lot of
> rules for determining what the server SHOULD do. But, there are no MUST-
> level requirements for how servers interpret Accept-* headers.
> Regards,
> Brian

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 03:41:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:33 UTC