李竞沁 wrote: > Agree. Maybe our process should be find whether the user has specify a > Accept Header, if not use the default one.
For sure, you don't want to overwrite a user defined Accept:, but I'm with Nathan that we should default to *, */* unless we see a good reason to do otherwise. Regards, Tim > 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 >>>> > > >
