Re: [whatwg/fetch] Accept headers in spec cause confusion (#274)

yoavweiss left a comment (whatwg/fetch#274)

> * Sites using the document Accept header to decide which image formats to include in the document could no longer do so.

I agree such sites are better off using e.g. the `<picture>` element to include all the options, or server-side content negotiation for the images themselves.

> I think the second issue is trickier. Since the browser doesn't know whether a document load is to an image or a HTML file ahead of time, it will always send the same document accept header. In order to enable content type negotiation this would suggest that image mime types **should** be part of the document accept header. But this might be an avenue for future bloat, because you can make the same argument for audio, video, and other types of content. Should we include all of them in the document accept header? 🤷

I think we probably should send the mime types for all of these, or at least the ones that are not ubiquitously supported. I think it'd be interesting to see what the different implementations are doing, try to align and then document that in the spec.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/fetch/issues/274#issuecomment-2841053461
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/fetch/issues/274/2841053461@github.com>