[Vorbis] Can't access www.xiph.org from Japan

[Ian Malone]

<begin RFC>
RFC 2616                        HTTP/1.1                       June 1999

10.4.7 406 Not Acceptable

    The resource identified by the request is only capable of generating
    response entities which have content characteristics not acceptable
    according to the accept headers sent in the request.

    Unless it was a HEAD request, the response SHOULD include an entity
    containing a list of available entity characteristics and location(s)
    from which the user or user agent can choose the one most
    appropriate. The entity format is specified by the media type given
    in the Content-Type header field. Depending upon the format and the
    capabilities of the user agent, selection of the most appropriate
    choice MAY be performed automatically. However, this specification
    does not define any standard for such automatic selection.

       Note: HTTP/1.1 servers are allowed to return responses which are
       not acceptable according to the accept headers sent in the
       request. In some cases, this may even be preferable to sending a
       406 response. User agents are encouraged to inspect the headers of
       an incoming response to determine if it is acceptable.

    If the response could be unacceptable, a user agent SHOULD
    temporarily stop receipt of more data and query the user for a
    decision on further actions.
</begin RFC>

I agree with Christopher Bouevthat making the warning more human
friendly would be worthwhile:
Sorry, the Xiph.org homepage is [only available in English/not available
in xxx] and your browser [does not list this as an acceptable option/
will not accept this option].  The English version is available at...

However, I'd point out the note which says it may be acceptable to
supply a response not corresponding to the accept headers.  AFAIK
there is only an English page.  The user typing www.xiph.org into
their address bar is going to be a little suprised to see a warning
they likely don't understand (whereas a page in a language they don't
understand they will at least be used to and the warning is in
English anyway), and I get the impression 406 is aimed at cases
where the UA really wouldn't be able to make sense of the response.
A UA that really cares the user is protected from seeing English
could, in theory, stop and prompt.

Finally I'd like to say I think the OP is being constructive, even if
Xiph does decide to retain the current behaviour.  This is something
which doesn't seem to have been considered deeply.

(PPS, apologies for any errors above; I'm in a bit of a rush)

imalone

Christophe BOUEV wrote:
> May I suggest you to personalize the error page (with usefull information,
> like in those mails...) so that the visitors be friendly informed ?
> 
> Chris
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Christopher Harrington" <webkid at webkid.com>
> To: <vorbis at xiph.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 7:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vorbis] Can't access www.xiph.org from Japan
> 
> 
> 
>>As much as I can agree about frivolous arguments, I personally don't
>>think this is "silly". Quite a number of people are quick to assume that
>>something is "broken" simply because it doesn't work for them. As much
>>as I'm pleased to see that he went to the effort to find a solution, the
>>[correct] solution is not in the server.
>>
>>His suggested approach is a deviation from standards that are designed
>>to make the internet a predictable and well-defined place to operate.
>>When we deviate from the standards, we solve one problem, and cause two
>>more. Now, web browsers that are designed or configured to request only
>>a specific language will now receive a different, wrong language.
>>
>>After that, you could configure the server to ignore HTTP/1.1 requests
>>from browsers that don't properly implement the protocol. Oh, hey, we
>>already do that.
>>
>>Well, while we're at it, why not put up websites that generate badly
>>formed HTML and CSS to conform to a proprietary browser's shortcomings?
>>
>>Oh.
>>
>>Wow.
>>
>>Look at that, now we've created an entire internet that only works with
>>one browser. An entire internet that is as broken as the client side is.
>>And now the line between "the website is broken" and "this alternative
>>browser is broken" blurs for every uneducated computer user that comes
>>along.
>>
>>The standards exist for a reason. Don't tell me Stallman would accept
>>this kind departure from well-formed, well-defined semantics and
>>protocols. Ignoring the standards is tantamount to ignoring the browser
>>bugs that created this whole problem in the first place.
>>
>>Is it so much to expect that a user looking at English web pages can
>>configure their browser to do so? In Firefox, it's seven clicks:
>>Edit -> Preferences -> General -> Languages -> (language dropdown) ->
>>English -> Add
>>
>>(That's assuming General isn't already selected)
>>
>>In IE, it's even simpler.
>>
>>The original poster pointed out that the server told him his browser
>>didn't accept any of the languages the server had to offer. There is no
>>"mystery" there; obviously, something about the browser needs to change
>>so that the server will respond correctly. It's reasonable to assume
>>that the "Language" option in your browser exists for that very reason.
>>
>>Sure, I'm a zealot. But you can't tell me that you wouldn't react the
>>same way if someone suggested using MP3 instead of Vorbis on a site,
>>just to cater to one user. ("It wouldn't break any current
>>implementations, everyone can play an MP3! Plus, it's easy to implement.
>>Just compress using one different command.")
>>
>>-Chris Harrington
>>
>>Aaron Whitehouse wrote:
>>
>>>Let us not be silly about this.
>>>
>>>The original post identified the problem and suggested an
>>>easy-to-implement solution which would fix it and not offend the
>>>correctly configured browsers. There is so much concern about making the
>>>Xiph codecs as accepted as possible and yet people want to make a stand
>>>at a user's first point of contact. I would not stop people who tied
>>>their shoelaces incorrectly from shopping at my store, regardless of
>>>whether I wanted to encourage correct shoe-tieing. I think that the
>>>original post was very responsible, it pointed to a guide to remedy the
>>>problem and quite rightly pointed out that those who have an incorrectly
>>>configured browser would not be able to view the site. The fact that
>>>they can fix their browser is irrelevant to the fact that, as there is
>>>an easy remedy, it is worth Xiph catering to those who have the browser
>>>incorrectly set up as well.
>>>
>>>If you are concerned about people setting up their browsers incorrectly,
>>>feel free to set up a website about its evils, but if Richard Stallman
>>>can put his ideologies aside (re:licensing) in order to make these
>>>codecs widely accepted, I think that you probably could as well.
>>>
>>>Aaron
>>>
>>>Christopher Harrington wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>_______________________________________________
>>Vorbis mailing list
>>Vorbis at xiph.org
>>http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Vorbis mailing list
> Vorbis at xiph.org
> http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/vorbis