On 27/02/12 09:41, Henri Sivonen wrote: > I think it would make sense to carefully police additions to HTTP > headers beyond User-Agent. (Also removals, I guess, from the site > compat perspective.) Proposals to add stuff pop up from time to time > and they tend to flop with the request left bloated. (Notable > exception: Accept-Encoding: gzip. DNT: 1 seems to be off to a good > start, too, but it's too early to tell what happens to it on the long > term.) > > One failure that added bloat that I'm partially guilty for is the > Accept header. Wouldn't you say good riddance to Accept if we could as > far as site compat goes?
Accept: is certainly on my personal hit-list, and was my other example of a header which excites controversy. (Or, at least, it has in the past - it might not do so today.) I would work on eliminating Accept by first, issuing a wide call (via hacks blog and other places) for existing examples of people using content-negotiation via Accept. If, as I would suspect, there are few or none, we can look at eliminating it by doing some web scraping and seeing if it makes a difference, like we have done with User-Agent:. Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
