On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ...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).
It looks as if Lars is deliberately going to drag this out bit by bit,
instead of telling us frankly and honestly what he did and what he
got; but I *very* much doubt that W3C is doing their content
negotiation on the basis of a user agent string.
Such misguided behaviour has been seen often enough elsewhere, but
(whatever faults I might find with the W3C) I don't think they would
be *that* perverse (other than perhaps as part of a demonstration of
how not to do it).
Let's see:
Not Acceptable
An appropriate representation of the requested resource /Home.var
could not be found on this server.
Available variants:
* Home.html , type text/html, charset utf-8
* Home.xhtml , type application/xhtml+xml, charset utf-8
Their only available versions are encoded in utf-8. My hunch is that
Lars told them via his Accept-charset that utf-8 was not acceptable to
him. If so, they've sent him the correct response. He can still try
viewing either of the available variants explicitly, from the menu
provided.
Anyhow, if/when Lars finally gets tired of spinning this out, and puts
his cards on the table, we shall see. Meantime I don't think it's
fair to accuse the W3C of mischief unless/until proven. A browser
which really doesn't accept utf-8 is not a great deal of use on the
web these days, I'd have thought.
|
|
