- From: Philip TAYLOR [PC87S-O/XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:08:59 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- CC: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org, software-questions@infoseek.com
Many thanks, Dominique : it looks as if a more recent version of Ultraseek doesn't manifest this problem, so upgrading may be the simplest solution. Philip Taylor -------- "Dominique Hazaël-Massieux" wrote: > > Le mer 25/06/2003 à 22:02, Olivier Thereaux a écrit : > > Either it's too early for me to understand or there's something wrong > > here... I don't see how setting up the charset served could possibly > > result in a 406. Maybe you changed something else in the setup? > > > > Anyone having any idea to explain this situation? > > IMHO, the client (the search engine bot) is confused by the parametrized > mime-type. The HTTP/1.1 RFC does indeed allude to such a broken > behavior: > " Unfortunately, some older HTTP/1.0 clients did not deal properly with > an explicit charset parameter" > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.4.1 > > I don't know how configurable IIS is, but the only solution I see to > that would be not to send the character set parameter to the search > engine bot (which should be easy to identify with its User-Agent > header), while sending it to any other user agent. > > (user agent sniffing is usually bad, but it seems here like a fairly low > level sniffing that shouldn't cause too many problems). > > Dom > -- > Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ > W3C/ERCIM > mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:10:42 UTC