Ticket #81 (closed design: fixed)
Content Negotiation for media types
|Reported by:||firstname.lastname@example.org||Owned by:|
|Component:||p3-payload||Severity:||Active WG Document|
HTTP content negotiation was one of those "nice in theory" protocol additions that, in practice, didn't work out. The original theory of content negotiation was worked out when the idea of the web was that browsers would support a handful of media types (text, html, a couple of image types), and so it might be reasonable to send an 'accept:' header listing all of the types supported. But in practice as the web evolved, browsers would support hundreds of types of all varieties, and even automatically locate readers for content-types, so it wasn't practical to send an 'accept:' header for all of the types.
I think we should deprecate HTTP content negotiation, if only to make it clear to people reading the spec that it doesn't really work that way in practice.
Many people seem to use HTTP content negotiation as a motivation for adding 'version' parameters to MIME types or registering new MIME types, with the hopes that the MIME types or parameters would be useful in HTTP content negotiation, and we should warn them that it isn't really productive to do so. That's why it might be useful advice to add to the guidelines for registering MIME types, should those ever be updated.
This may also affect the text that describes the circumstances when a 406 may/must be sent.
- Status changed from new to closed
- Resolution set to wontfix
- Status changed from closed to reopened
- Resolution wontfix deleted
- Severity set to Active WG Document
- Milestone changed from unassigned to 08