- From: Roger Gonzalez <rg@server.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:07:25 -0400
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Okay, you wise guys. There's a crucial issue on the table: I've gotten several connections with "User-agent" headers that contain things like: User-agent: SomeGuyTyping/1234.1234 (ha ha) and User-agent: TelnetHacker/1.1 As you can see, there is vast potential for screwing up vital client s/w statistics-gathering. We simply must standardize how we snoop each others servers. :-) obhttp: Can we clarify in the spec what "Accept" is used for? I'm of the opinion that if all you do with something is save it to disk, then you shouldn't say you accept it. -Anything- can just be shoved to disk. "Accept: */*" conveys absolutely no useful information, whereas if we knew that "image/gif" was accepted but "image/jpeg" wasn't, the information provider could tailor the returned resource accordingly. I also think that we perhaps should consider adding a version identifier to the media types accepted. i.e. "image/gif;89a", or "text/html;2.0". This would allow a CGI script to perhaps decide to send out a <PRE> tabbed table instead of an HTML2.0 table. (I currently do this anyway, but base off the user agent, which is much less cool.) -Roger Roger Gonzalez NetCentric Corporation rg@server.net 56 Rogers Street home (617) 646-0028 Cambridge, MA 02142 mobile (617) 755-0635 work (617) 868-8600 60 09 3A EE FE 6A 1E CC -pgp- B7 F7 6B 0F 00 1D 01 C7
Received on Monday, 16 October 1995 07:02:42 UTC