httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Subject Re: Negotiation updates, and transparent neg.
Date Wed, 21 Aug 1996 07:19:47 GMT
> Netscape 2.0 and 3.0 send:
> Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, */*
>> on a normal request because their *&*%^$%#$^ program is too lazy
>> to do a merge.
> What do you mean by this? A merge of what?

A merge of any explicit type into */* if both are present with the
same quality.  Netscape does not prefer those image types on a normal
request -- it just lists them because a different part of their software
generates that part of the Accept header.

>> The problem is that if a given resource is available as both
>> text/html and image/jpeg (as might be the case for a magazine cover),
>> then inventing a low q value for */* means that the user will get
>> the image/jpeg version even if the text/html has a much higher qs.
>> I'm sure that RST mentioned this to me last year at MIT.
> Even so, this case is far less likely than the case of, for example,
> image/jpeg and image/png, with the PNG having a higher qs value than the
> JPEG. See, Netscape can handle HTML, and it can handle JPEG. It can't
> handle PNG. I'd rather see a scheme that gives a browser *something*, of
> possibly lesser quality, that it can handle inline, instead of giving it
> something of high quality that it can only save to disk.

I'd rather have something that represents what the browser actually wants.
If it shows a list of specific image types, why not just assume


since that will result in all other image formats receiving an extremely
small quality and not affect the other half of the browser that actually
prefers text/html over anything else.


View raw message