Stewart Brodie wrote:
If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!), fix it.
Some older versions of Microsoft IIS are the servers that I've come across
that fail to cope with it. It is unrealistic to expect these to be
undeployed any time soon. The comment in my code does not specify
Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
If */* is semantically the same as not sending the header at all, and
the former works with more servers, I would prefer that we use the
former.
...
I would prefer not to silently change what the client requested.
Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stewart Brodie wrote:
If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!), fix it.
Some older versions of Microsoft IIS are the servers that I've come
across that fail to cope with it. It is unrealistic to expect these to
be undeployed any time
Jonas Sicking wrote:
...
If */* is semantically the same as not sending the header at all, and
the former works with more servers, I would prefer that we use the former.
...
I would prefer not to silently change what the client requested.
If a server can't cope with it (evidence, please!),
Julian Reschke schreef:
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:56:42 +0200, Laurens Holst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why was this changed? Why should user agents pretend that they know
what
kind of resource the user expects by setting an Accept header that is
unreliable? FWIW,
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 20:56:42 +0200, Laurens Holst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why was this changed? Why should user agents pretend that they know what
kind of resource the user expects by setting an Accept header that is
unreliable? FWIW, Internet Explorer and Safari
