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

Re: [XMLHttpRequest] LC-20080415 comment

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:03:52 +0200
To: "Stewart Brodie" <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
Cc: "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ua1tkq0p64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:48:48 +0200, Stewart Brodie  
<stewart.brodie@antplc.com> wrote:
> The only reason I suggested forcing implementations to use "*/*" as the
> value for an automatically added header is that it preserves the  
> semantics of the request, since this is the default to be assumed by  
> HTTP servers in the absence of the header (RFC2396, section 14.1).

Yes, I understood that.

> Should clients be warned that failing to set an Accept header explicitly
> will lead to inconsistent behaviour between different UAs?

I think user agent developers are very well aware that differences in  
implementation leads to different behavior :-)

> By using values other than "*/*", the UA is overriding the script's type  
> preference, as it restricts the types that the server may return -  
> behaviour which I would
> class as a bug.  The UA isn't going to be processing the returned entity
> body - the script is.  I realise that the whole problem is caused by the  
> new SHOULD requirement in the first place, but, unfortunately, it is  
> needed for web compatibility.

If scripts would like to perform content negotiation they should set the  
Accept header themselves.

Kind regards,

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 16:05:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:26 UTC