- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 21:39:05 +0100
- To: "Web APIs WG \(public\)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch> > 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) I've already given my use case, in http://www.w3.org/mid/065b01c658e9$eb1ba6c0$817ba8c0@Snufkin zero install tools on a site are very useful, but for that to exist we need to be able to match requests that were evaluated, so we need to be able to recreate the request. Given that your only argument appears to be "it's not a good idea", rather than, it's not implementable or whatever, I can't see why you feel other peoples use cases are not acceptable ones to meet - particularly given that implementations currently support the use cases and you want to make them more restrictive. >> > 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. Could you provide some more details on "screw around with proxies and stuff", I see no problems, and it's the same use case as the previous one. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 20:40:31 UTC