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

Re: 406 Not Acceptable - The new frames!

  • Subject: Re: 406 Not Acceptable - The new frames!
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 10:45:06 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <slrne045di.1pet.usenet@goodwill.io.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602262103230.23900@ppepc55.ph.gla.ac.uk> <slrne046fd.1pet.usenet@goodwill.io.com> <46f4jaFafgpaU1@individual.net>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Harlan Messinger ] on Monday 27 February 2006 01:56 \__

> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602262103230.23900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> the lovely and talented Alan J. Flavell
>> broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Lars Eighner wrote:
>>>> Remember the "Get a better browser!" messages that you used to run
>>>> into when people thought frames were cool?  Well, there is a new
>>>> version of it.  It's called 406 - Not Acceptable!

...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).

Certain Web sites avoid bad layout or wish to pass on the same message as
above in a more subtle way, but intentionally blocking button based on user
agent sniffing. This can lead to a lot of confusion, which in turn burns
time, fields more support queries, and promotes frustration and nervous
yelling at the monitor.

Browser racism must end.

>>> I don't think you've grasped the meaning of 406 yet; but feel free to
>>> expand on your observations, and then it should become clear.
>> So far as I can tell, it means "Get a better browser!"
> Isn't "Get a better browser" rendered by including it between NOFRAMES
> tags? ...

That's *exactly* what *I* thought.

> ... That works by sending it as part of the regular response--the
> server doesn't have any idea that the browser doesn't support frames.
> Even if that's what 406 was for, to send a 406 *instead of* a 200 or
> some other code would require the server to know that the browser
> doesn't support frames.

While on the subject of user-agent spoofing, I can never get very far on the
Web with my default user-agent string:

Use Agent: Roy Schestowitz's telepathic mind
App Name: None of your business
App Version: 1.0b
Platform: GNU/Linux
vendor: Mom & Dad

This is never ever good enough for on-line banking, among other Web sites
that sniff these and deny service rather than remain impartial.

Related links: User Agent Switcher Extension for Firefox:


Useful if you can't bother installing Opera for sites that require IE.


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