W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2007

Re: ISSUE-24: A compromise on authoritative metadata using Accept?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:24:19 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640709140624t5e8945bbha18f08aeaee7816c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Noah,

On 9/14/07, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "If an Accept header field is present, and if the server cannot send a
> response which is acceptable according to the combined Accept field value,
> then the server SHOULD send a 406 (not acceptable) response."
>
> So, if a client issues Accept: image/jpeg, and gets back Status code 200
> with Content-type: text/plain, it has Prima Facie evidence that the server
> has violated RFC 2616.

It's only a SHOULD, so there's no violation occurring: the response
remains self-descriptive so there's no failure to communicate.  All
that's lost is some bandwidth.

FWIW, I can't recall the last time I saw a 406 in the wild, and I use
conneg semi-regularly.

Also FWIW, I think the best thing the TAG could do regarding this
issue, is to describe a possible user interface for this "alert" that
needs to be raised to the user whenever the UA sniffs.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.         http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 13:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC