Re: [whatwg/fetch] Accept headers in spec cause confusion (#274)

@snuggs - apologies if my reply came across as overly-negative. That wasn't my intention.

> I do realize we push back on things conneg-y.

I don't know that this is still true in general. It certainly isn't true for my specific case. And we have been pushing [improved content negotiation](http://httpwg.org/http-extensions/client-hints.html) solutions in the last few years.




> Is this even a concern @yoavweiss or are there better fish to fry?

I'm not sure what you're referring to by "this". IMO, "correct" and useful Accept headers are certainly something worth investing time and thought in. I don't think we need to specify what the value of those headers is for all request destinations, because support varies between different browsers and implementations. Therefore I believe the spec need to give implementations the liberty (and guidance) to do what's right. Unlike today, where implementations need to ignore a SHOULD in order to truly advertise their support for non-universal file formats.

Regarding `fetch` vs.`script` destinations, do you have a use case in mind where differentiating the two would be helpful? What are the `Accept` header values for them when not considering preload?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/274#issuecomment-373440205