- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:10:11 -0700
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, Web APIs WG <public-webapi@w3.org>
Jim Ley wrote: > > "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> >> Jim Ley wrote: >>> >>> "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc> >>>> Though the usecase for Accept-Charset seems fairly weak. Why >>>> couldn't the author simply filter responseText? >>> >>> How would an author do that? Or do you mean the ASCII use case, and >>> not might accessibility tool use case? >> >> The only use case I've heard so far is the ability to request a >> pure-ascii response. Or I guess more generally requesting an encoding >> that only contains a specific subset of the unicode map. However I'm >> not sure what value this gives over simply looping over responseText >> and testing if all chars are in the desired subset. > > As part of the W3's EARL work, it's likely I'll be resurrecting some > tools of mine which consume EARL reports about a site and present > information to the user about the problems, these tools either run in > the browser as a script extension, or by being installed on the site > that's tested. To be able to show the error, I need to be able to > repeat the request that was tested, this means sending the same headers > - so I need to be able to achieve that. Of course if the encoding is > not supported then I cannot do anything and expect it to fail, but in > the majority situation lots of encodings are supported so changing > preferences will work. I'm not sure I understand the use case. Do you need to be able to send any combination of headers as was repeated earlier by another UA? If so I don't think we can ever archive that functionality since there will always be some headers that we want to limit. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 14 April 2006 06:10:23 UTC