- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 20:27:09 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 00:09:06 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > * Accept-Charset > > > * Accept-Encoding > > > > These it makes no sense to remove. They're only useful for the UA > > because the UA is the one that's gonna handle the charset and encoding > > aspects. > > What's the use case for having them restricted? I believe that was the > main argument against having these restricted. I don't understand what you mean by "restricted" here. Authors shouldn't be exposed to the character encoding and transfer encoding aspects of the network layer. It doesn't affect them. There is no reason for them to lessen the list of accepted charsets (since the server can send back whatever it wants anyway) and no reason for them to increase the list of accepted charsets (since the only possible result of that would be to make the data unintelligible). > > > * User-Agent > > > > I would ask that we only allow additions to this one. > > Use case? Allowing authors to fake the UA string can screw around with proxies and stuff. I see no value in allowing that. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 20:27:15 UTC