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
<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