Re: distinguishing browser types

Robert S. Thau writes:
>    Date: Thu, 27 Apr 95 22:57 PDT
>    From: wmperry@spry.com
> 
>      But what about a browser that is ultra-configured, and really _CAN_
>    display every type and its grandmother with no lossage whatsoever?
> 
> Such a browser would have to figure out how to deal with media types
> which were just invented by the guy who runs the server, for which
> viewers are not generally available --- to say nothing of the fun to
> be had in writing the viewer for application/binary.  Whoever figures
> out who to do all *that* can surely figure out how to get his browser
> to put an explicit "q=1.0" on the "Accept: */*" header, to suppress
> the inappropriate default ;-).

  The browser writer isn't in charge of the helper apps.  :)  And I use
emacs as my viewer for application/binary. :)

> More to the point --- maybe I'm thick, but but I really don't see how
> a browser which deals "properly" with *any* media type could possibly
> exist, since people can invent new ones at will, so I don't feel
> obliged to cater to it (especially when every other browser out there
> would be served better by something else).
> 
>    Servers
>    should make assumptions like this, no matter if they are justified at the
>    moment.  Browser authors should get off their !#%!#@ and do it right.
> 
> Agreed --- if we can agree that "doing it right" means specifiying
> explicit quality values on Accept: headers.

  Yup, that is my definition of 'right'.  I just need to find a good gui
for it, instead of using the mailcap file.

> However, so long as the browsers *don't* provide quality values, the
> servers have to make assumptions, whether justified or not, and the
> only choice we have in the matter is trying to find the set of
> assumptions which will cause the least trouble.  My personal view is
> that defaulting quality on everything, including */*, to the same
> value, isn't the right choice.

  I don't think the default should be 0.5... the CERN daemon gives theirs
something like 0.000005 or thereabouts.

-Bill P.

Received on Sunday, 30 April 1995 07:10:04 UTC