W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] LC-20080415 comment

From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:36:26 +0100
To: Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ce6535f08de309e35b34bf5314932d7563ba9a7e@localhost>

Subbu Allamaraju <subbu.allamaraju@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 16, 2008, at 4:08 AM, Stewart Brodie wrote:
> > I think that this is a bad idea, because some servers fail to deliver
> > resources in the absence of the Accept header where the resource has
> > multiple variants available.  Some older versions of IIS are known  
> > to fail
> > in this manner.  There may be others that I'm not aware of too,  
> > obviously.
> 
> Since sending Accept is not a MUST in 2616, isn't this kind of  
> software already broken?

Absolutely.  However, the reality of the situation is that browsers have to
be able to access resources stored on these somewhat widely-deployed
servers.

I cannot ship a browser that cannot talk to IIS.  The XHR spec prohibits me
from adjusting the request such that it can.

My suggested change is semantically transparent, as the server is supposed
to assume "Accept: */*" in the absence of the header anyway.


-- 
Stewart Brodie
Software Engineer
ANT Software Limited
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 15:37:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 April 2008 15:37:02 GMT