Bug 52719

I suggest giving application/xhtml+xml higher priority than text/xml and
application/xml because the first one is more specific in any way than the
latter ones.

Also, video/x-mng should be preferred over png which itself should be preferred
over jpeg.

So I suggest to use:
Accept:
application/xhtml+xml,text/xml;q=0.9,application/xml;q=0.9,text/html;q=0.8,text/plain;q=0.7,video/x-mng,image/png;q=0.9,image/jpeg;q=0.8,image/gif;q=0.2,text/css,*/*;q=0.1


And as soon as Konqueror supports SVG, the Accept header should be:

Accept:
application/xhtml+xml,text/xml;q=0.9,application/xml;q=0.9,text/html;q=0.8,text/plain;q=0.7,image/svg+xml,video/x-mng;q=0.9,image/png;q=0.8,image/jpeg;q=0.7,image/gif;q=0.2,text/css,*/*;q=0.1


I would really not be anxious about the length as long as the header doesn't
exceed an MTU (and it doesn't).

Another relevant link:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201195

I would *strongly* discourage putting application/xhtml+xml into the accept header.  
Last time I checked, konqueror just chucks xhtml documents through it's tag soup 
parser, which is not correct behaviour at all for xhtml served as application/xhtml+xml. 
 
For more details, please see bug #52665 
 
mng, png and jpeg all serve different purposes - it doesn't make sense to prefer one 
over another.  Where there is a specific reason for providing multiple image formats (I 
can't think of any off the top of my head), the author can weight the elements on the 
server-side - I don't see why konqueror should care which it gets. 
 

Konqueror should care about different image formats having different priorities because thus it 
can tell the server it supports and prefers e.g. image/mng over image/gif. The only chance for 
a server to easily do content negotiation is to listen to the priorities given client side. The 
default priorities on the server side must match the crappy */* several browsers shamelessly 
send without adding a low priority, so the server itself must prefer old crap like image/gif or 
image/jpeg over the new formats like image/svg+xml, image/png or video/x-mng. 
 
So if I have some little animation which is smaller in video/x-mng than in image/gif, I'd like to 
put it on the server as both formats, serving mng-supporting browsers with video/x-mng and 
image/gif to the others. If a user agent doesn't tell my server it prefers video/x-mng it won't get 
video/x-mng. 
 
This is totally analogeous to the HTML vs. XHTML issue. (Of course, Konqueror doesn't 
support XHTML properly yet?) 
 
/Christian 

Hello, 
 
Please read RFC 2616 section 14.1 to see how the Accept header works. Your 
description about how the preference for a specific mime-type works is simply 
wrong.  If there is no quality factor specified the precedence is to prefer the 
more specific mime-types over the geneirc ones.  For example, for 
 
Accept: text/html, image/jpeg, image/png, text/*, image/*, */* 
 
The precedence would be 
 
text/html 
image/jpeg 
image/png 
text/* 
image/* 
*/* 
 
Now the server can substitute image/jpeg or image/png for text/html at will if that 
is the only mime-type it can send back. Anyways, I have fixed the default header 
so it now it does 
 
Accept: text/html, image/jpeg, image/png, text/*, image/*, */* 
 
instead of 
 
Accept: text/*, image/jpeg, image/png, image/*, */* 
 
BTW, we did start out sending the quality factor, but later removed it because it 
does not work with some webservers.  IIRC, it was the older version of 
Netscape's webservers (Sun's iplanet now??) that choked on it. 
 
Regards, 
Dawit A. 
 

Hi Dawit,

I know how Mime works, but Microsoft doesn't, which forces me to configure my servers not just accordingly to the Mime RFCs but also to Microsoft's "Accept: */*".

/Christian