Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: 406 Not Acceptable - The new frames!

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> ...Recently seen a site that rejects Firefox simply for being 
> Firefox. I have also come across sites that openly reject IE or show 
> an offensive icon while rendering pages with transparent PNG's. I 
> have also seen sites that reject anything that is not Firefox 
> (though I am not entirely sure about this one).

It looks as if Lars is deliberately going to drag this out bit by bit, 
instead of telling us frankly and honestly what he did and what he 
got; but I *very* much doubt that W3C is doing their content 
negotiation on the basis of a user agent string.

Such misguided behaviour has been seen often enough elsewhere, but 
(whatever faults I might find with the W3C) I don't think they would 
be *that* perverse (other than perhaps as part of a demonstration of 
how not to do it).

Let's see:

                                Not Acceptable

   An  appropriate  representation  of  the  requested resource /Home.var
   could not be found on this server.

   Available variants:
     * Home.html , type text/html, charset utf-8
     * Home.xhtml , type application/xhtml+xml, charset utf-8

Their only available versions are encoded in utf-8.  My hunch is that 
Lars told them via his Accept-charset that utf-8 was not acceptable to 
him.  If so, they've sent him the correct response.  He can still try 
viewing either of the available variants explicitly, from the menu 

Anyhow, if/when Lars finally gets tired of spinning this out, and puts 
his cards on the table, we shall see.  Meantime I don't think it's 
fair to accuse the W3C of mischief unless/until proven.  A browser 
which really doesn't accept utf-8 is not a great deal of use on the 
web these days, I'd have thought.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index