Brendan Eich wrote:
> > 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 ?
The current proposal is current because it was the only sensible
suggestion made in the bug. Now is as good a time as any for other
suggestions :-) My reading of the RFC suggests image/gif;q=0.9, image/*
would work.
However, saying that all image types are equally acceptable causes
forward-compatibility problems - if a new image type arrives that
Mozilla doesn't support, it will be sent in preference to GIF, which it
does, and possibly in preference to JPG and PNG because they are all of
equal precedence.
Remember that if image decoders are field-upgraded, we can get the XPI
to update the pref as well.
When we gave the W3C feedback on their Common User-Agent Problems paper,
we did suggest that they suggest a suitable Accept: header for Mozilla,
given the criteria we are setting. Perhaps we should ask them again?
Gerv
