> The advantages of it being a pref. are numerous:
>
> - We can have a nice big argument about what it should be (the current
> candidate is
> Accept: text/xml;q=1, text/html;q=0.9, image/png;q=1, image/jpeg;q=1,
> image/gif;q=0.9, text/plain;q=0.8, text/css;q=1, */*;q=0.01 ) and then
> change it easily when we decide. This is a world away from the "4k Accept
> header" problem in early Netscape versions.
You mean early Mosaic versions.
> - Embedders can change it to match the capabilities of their particular
> Mozilla subset
>
> - Mozilla extension providers (using XPIs) can use signed scripts to add
> e.g. application/svg+xml or whatever to the Accept: header.
>
> Does anyone object to this course of action? It goes without saying that
> this pref would have _no_ user UI.
I have no problem with it; I also have no problem with a short default pref
that's better than */*. I do not like the image/{png,jpeg,gif} proposal you
quote above (what about mng? what about next year's model for which inline
image decoders can be field upgraded?). Would it work to do
image/gif;q=0.9, image/*;q=1 ?
/be
