On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 04:42:09PM -0700, Brendan Eich wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> (Death to GIFs! Let them eat PNGs. :-)
>
> I suppose we could enumerate known image types as you propose (but did you leave
> out image/mng, or is that covered by png?), and keep going (it's not as if new
> types emerge that frequently). Something about it rubs me the wrong way. More
> when I figure out what that is.
>
> > 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?
>
> Sure. I hope it's not too long.
What's "too long"? I'll be back at work on Tuesday and can chat with
folks about the issue. (I'm dancing around the international date
line, but I feel like it might be Saturday in the west now.)
Unfortunately, I was a bit over-ambitious in cleaning out my mail and
nuked the beginning of this thread. If this message does not capture
the full story, could someone point me at an archive or bounce me the
critical pieces?
--
-eric
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
feel free to forward this message to any forum.
