W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Character set specification

From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:08:59 +0100
Message-ID: <3EFC7A2B.360CD0A8@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org, software-questions@infoseek.com

Many thanks, Dominique : it looks as if a more recent
version of Ultraseek doesn't manifest this problem, so
upgrading may be the simplest solution.

Philip Taylor
"Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux" wrote:
> Le mer 25/06/2003 ŗ 22:02, Olivier Thereaux a ťcrit :
> > Either it's too early for me to understand or there's something wrong
> > here... I don't see how setting up the charset served could possibly
> > result in a 406. Maybe you changed something else in the setup?
> >
> > Anyone having any idea to explain this situation?
> IMHO, the client (the search engine bot) is confused by the parametrized
> mime-type. The HTTP/1.1 RFC does indeed allude to such a broken
> behavior:
> " Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with
> an explicit charset parameter"
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.4.1
> I don't know how configurable IIS is, but the only solution I see to
> that would be not to send the character set parameter to the search
> engine bot (which should be easy to identify with its User-Agent
> header), while sending it to any other user agent.
> (user agent sniffing is usually bad, but it seems here like a fairly low
> level sniffing that shouldn't cause too many problems).
> Dom
> --
> Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
> mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:10:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:37 UTC