- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 03:25:31 +0100 (MET)
- To: koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman), Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr (Chris Lilley)
- Cc: ftang@netscape.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Alan_Barrett/DUB/Lotus.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com, Ed_Batutis/CAM/Lotus@crd.lotus.comi18ngrp, bobj@netscape.com, mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch, www-international@www10.w3.org
On Jan 10, 7:53pm, Koen Holtman wrote: > > It would correct a > > sitiation where browsers send a list of things they do accept, followed > > by *, and this is (currently) often taken to mean exactly the same as > > if they had only sent the *. > > In my opinion, this sitiatiomn should be corrected by changing the browsers > to send good accept headers, not by changing the spec to mandate some kind > of workaround in the server. Oh, certainly. I was just suggesting better defined behaviour for servers talking with existing clients. > We could add a note to the spec telling that many existing 1.0 clients > erroneously send `Accept: a/b, c/d, *' when they mean `Accept: a/b, c/d, > *;q=0.1', Or indeed, a lower q factor than any explicitly listed, as suggested earlier. > But that is about as far as I would like to go. Sure. I was not proposing that clients should not send q factors - they should. I wish more did. But it is as well to specify what the server should do when they don't, or don't for all the possibilities they specify. -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 10 January 1997 21:26:19 UTC