- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:30:16 -0500
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
On Dec 12, 2006, at 12:05 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:59:01 +0530, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > wrote: > >> >> Regarding... >> >> "To determine what formats a device supports, Web sites may use any >> combination of device profile information such as the HTTP User-Agent >> header, HTTP Accept headers and UAProf." >> -- http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ (2 November 2006) >> >> The HTTP accept header is specifically designed for this purpose; >> web sites SHOULD use it. > > The problem is, given the cost (in terms of battery consumption, > latency, bandwidth, ...) of sending data from a device, it makes no > sense at all for reasonably capable devices to be sending the 1kb or > so of data that would make this feasible. 1kb? where do you get that? I don't see anything in the draft or elsewhere that leads to that conclusion. And what alternative takes significantly less bandwidth? The way the draft currently reads re-specifies HTTP. I suggest that's beyond your charter. >> It's OK to say that they MAY use other stuff, but it doesn't >> make sense to say that User-Agent is just as good as Accept >> for figuring out what format the client wants. > > In practical terms it does. The standard might say otherwise, but > unfortunately there are real problems engendered in actually > implementing it, which is why browsers don't Which browsers don't? All browsers I know of send reasonable Accept: headers. > (as far as I know the only browsers that are accurate are those which > only accept a couple of formats anyway, and Lynx which sends a > monstrous amount of data). > > cheers > > Chaals > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2006 14:30:44 UTC