- From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 11:47:23 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-webapi@w3.org
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Stewart Brodie wrote: > >> If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!), fix it. > > > > Some older versions of Microsoft IIS are the servers that I've come > > across that fail to cope with it. It is unrealistic to expect these to > > be undeployed any time soon. The comment in my code does not specify > > version numbers - it simply indicates that a lack of an Accept header > > causes some versions of IIS to return a None Match error. On that > > basis, and because sending "Accept: */*" fixes the problem, I am > > assuming that the fault lies in the content negotation code. > > Well, the client alway can set "Accept" to "*/*" if it needs to > communicate with that server. That was my original point: the XHR LC explicitly prohibited the UA from adding an Accept header. That's why I requested that it be changed from a MUST NOT requirement. As far as I'm concerned, the UA has to be free to implement such workarounds, especially any that are semantically transparent. > Please do not burden the spec with workarounds when it is clearly *not* > required. I don't think it is being specified. My original suggestion was to add something saying that if the client chose to add the header then it SHOULD use "*/*" as the value. Anne already rejected this on the grounds that existing desktop browsers send arbitrary values for the header. I don't like that situation (I think those browsers are simply broken), but given that the desktop browsers aren't going to change to comply, accepted that it could be left unspecified. -- Stewart Brodie Software Engineer ANT Software Limited
Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 10:48:20 UTC