Agree. Maybe our process should be find whether the user has specify a Accept Header, if not use the default one.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > -- Yours sincerely, Charles Lee
