- From: Rotan Hanrahan <Rotan.Hanrahan@MobileAware.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:42:34 +0100
- To: "Daniel Barclay" <daniel@fgm.com>, <public-bpwg@w3.org>
- Cc: <ajaynaphade@jataayusoft.com>, "Neil Thompson" <neil.thompson@appswing.com>
"Accept" headers were OK in the days when a MIME-type was a MIME-type and you didn't have to worry about device/browser diversity. For example, "text/html" isn't always enough. It that for iMode, PDA, TV or PC? MIME types are not always sufficiently detailed. Of course, instead of the Accept header you have have a header referring to a profile, or profiles, wherein more accurate information is located. CC/PP anyone? Of course, this means that accurate profiles are required, and managing such a collection of information is not as easy as it sounds, as the people in the DDWG will tell you. The q factor is generally helpful when you have a variety of ways to deliver the content, but the "broad-stroke" approach of MIME types makes this less useful. You could, of course, put q info into a more discerning profile... ---Rotan -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Barclay [mailto:daniel@fgm.com] Sent: 19 August 2005 19:32 To: public-bpwg@w3.org Cc: Rotan Hanrahan; ajaynaphade@jataayusoft.com; Neil Thompson Subject: Re: URLs and access issues Rotan Hanrahan wrote: > As the iMode experience shows, the Accept header isn't always enough. Would it be enough (on the server side) if browsers actually set Accept headers appropiately? > And don't you just love to see "*/*" in an Accept header :) Yeah, there is that problem. If browsers set the quality factor appropriately, would that solve the problem? Daniel
Received on Friday, 19 August 2005 18:42:44 UTC