Re: Proposal: we add new bugzilla component for webRTC stuff?

On 2012-02-27 11:32, Gervase Markham wrote:
> 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:.

The problem IMHO isn't content negotiation per se (for instance, in 
Ajax), but web servers that fail if Accept is absent.

Best regards, Julian