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

Re: XHR LC comment: Accept header went from MUST NOT to SHOULD

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:48:26 -0700
Message-ID: <482E012A.7040506@sicking.cc>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, "Web API WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:56:42 +0200, Laurens Holst 
>> <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
>>> Why was this changed? Why should user agents pretend that they know what
>>> kind of resource the user expects by setting an Accept header that is
>>> unreliable? FWIW, Internet Explorer and Safari set the (reasonably
>>> acceptable */*), but it would be better to leave it out entirely. 
>>> Also see:
>>>
>>> http://www.grauw.nl/blog/entry/470
>>
>> It was pointed out by another Last Call comment that not setting the 
>> Accept header causes servers to break. Given the results above I 
>> suppose we could require that for XMLHttpRequest purposes it is at 
>> least always set to */*. Would that work?
> 
> Not setting the Accept header means the same thing as setting it to 
> "*/*" 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.1.p.8>), 
> so these servers simply are buggy.

If "*/*" is semantically the same as not sending the header at all, and 
the former works with more servers, I would prefer that we use the former.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 21:49:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 May 2008 21:49:53 GMT