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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 May 2008 16:05:03 GMT