- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:24:19 -0400
- 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