RE: conneg considered harmful

Darrel Miller wrote:
> For the record, here is a link [1] to Larry Masinter's
> apology for pushing accept header based conneg and his
> suggestion that it be deprecated.  It is sad that this
> email is from 2006 and yet here we are still...

and mike amundsen replied:
> second, it's not clear to me whether Larry is apologizing
> for the conneg implementation details or the concept of
> conneg itself. and i see nothing here regarding
> client-driven conneg,

It's clear if you read the whole thread. Larry retreats a bit to "Javascript detection does a better job than Accept", admitting that Accept-Language is doing a fine job, and Accept itself might be OK in non-scripted payloads/clients.


Robert Brewer
[email protected]