Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Uh, are you sure that text/xhtml+xml is a real mime type? Somebody
> > requested application/xhtml+xml (implemented) but this is the first time
> > I have heard of text/xhtml+xml...
>
> Nope, not sure at all. Google doesn't seem to provide very many hits, so
> I'm probably dreaming :-)
>
> Current candidate:
> Accept: text/xml, application/xml, application/xhtml+xml,
> text/html;q=0.9, image/png, image/mng, image/jpeg,
> image/gif;q=0.1, text/plain;q=0.8, text/css, */*;q=0.01
>
> (the image/gif change to q=0.1 is to show what we think of GIFs ;-)
>
> What's the current situation with Javascript MIME types? As far as I can
> see, this is the final thing we might need to include.
application/x-javascript, but I don't see the point in making the Accept
header even longer for a "experimental" type that's shipped in comment-hiding
containers, or otherwise foisted on the web user, for over five years now
without any Accept header.
I'm already concerned about performance effects of the above candidate for
modem users -- these go out on every image request, right?
/be
>
>
> Gerv
