- 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>
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 <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 16:05:02 UTC