- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:08:01 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On mån, 2008-08-04 at 08:17 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > But apparently servers choose a default anyway. So the defaulting may be > different for different Accept-* headers. Yes, defaulting is different for different Accept-* headers. Implemeters are free to select how to handle the case when there is no acceptable variant. Some may do very elaborate guessing, some just use a default, some return 406... For most it's very natural and common sense to return the servers defaul language if none of the available languages is indicated as acceptable by Accept-Language. The result will still render fine, even if the user probably won't understand much. But it's not the same for most other Accept-* headers as unacceptable type or encoding most likely will result in a popup for download in the browser... But there is no difference in the spec. Implementers are free to use common sense on when to use a default and when not, and clients should indicate their preference and not assume all servers have the same default behavior. > So again, what problem do we want to solve here? No idea.. only jumped in to explain what the specs says which aparently wasn't understood and have not followed the discussion before. (language is not really in my interest, but cache and negotiation model is) Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 21:08:44 UTC