2008/12/8 Kevin Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Maybe this violates the HTTP/1.1 spec, should we abandon these servers? > No, I don't think so. RI, IE and Firefox all send Accept header to support > such servers. > Why don't we follow this as well to satisfy with our potential clients?
I don't think the question is about setting Accept or not, it's the actual value used. It's not surprising that IE and Firefox and most web browesrs set an Accept that says they know HTML, GIFs and JPEGs - they are web browsers, that's what they do. This isn't a web browser, this is just a raw HTTP socket connection. It has no knowledge of what the code using it would prefer. Yes we should be compatible with the RI, but we should also try not to be silly. I suggest setting Accept to just be a wildcard. This should satisfy all conditions. -Nathan > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM, 李竞沁 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Kevin,I have these questions: >> 1. What will the server, which is not compatible with HTTP 1.1, do if it >> receives a HTTP 1.1 request? ( Our HTTP header has told that it is a HTTP >> 1.1 request.) >> 2. Should this be a server's misbehavior because spec does not insist send >> accept header? Or are there any common rules to guide this behavior? ( Do >> we >> only miss accept header?) >> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Kevin Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Charles wrote, >> > > The spec of Http said that "all headers except Host are optional." It >> is >> > what the RI does. >> > >> > Yes, I think we should be compatible with RI's behaviors. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Yours sincerely, >> Charles Lee >> >
