W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ISSUE-71: setRequestHeader has too many header restrictions

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 20:27:09 +0000 (UTC)
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0604072020490.21459@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:09:06 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > > * Accept-Charset
> > > * Accept-Encoding
> > 
> > These it makes no sense to remove. They're only useful for the UA 
> > because the UA is the one that's gonna handle the charset and encoding 
> > aspects.
> 
> What's the use case for having them restricted? I believe that was the 
> main argument against having these restricted.

I don't understand what you mean by "restricted" here.

Authors shouldn't be exposed to the character encoding and transfer 
encoding aspects of the network layer. It doesn't affect them. There is no 
reason for them to lessen the list of accepted charsets (since the server 
can send back whatever it wants anyway) and no reason for them to increase 
the list of accepted charsets (since the only possible result of that 
would be to make the data unintelligible).


> > > * User-Agent
> > 
> > I would ask that we only allow additions to this one.
> 
> Use case?

Allowing authors to fake the UA string can screw around with proxies and 
stuff. I see no value in allowing that.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 20:27:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:54 GMT