232506 - Accept: Add XUL support

Status: VERIFIED WONTFIX

(Core :: Networking: HTTP, defect)

Description

[Nowhere man]

User-Agent:       
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3

When a web server supporting content negotiation provides an (X)HTML page and an
equivalent XUL document, as XUL is far more convenient for it's purpose, user
interface, than HTML is, Mozilla should use the XUL document.

So application/vnd.mozilla.xul+xml should be included in the Accept header.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Go to a URL providing transparent content negotiation with a XUL and an HTML
alternatives
Actual Results:  
The HTML one is received from server

Expected Results:  
The XUL one should be received from server

Comment 1

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

The reason we didn't do this in the past is that there are so many
XUL-supporting browsers out there (Netscape 7, all previous versions of Mozilla
and Mozilla Firebird, Beonex etc.) that if we put it in and people started using
it, a lot of browsers would get unfairly excluded.

That argument gets more true the longer we don't have it in there.

Gerv

Comment 2

[Christian :Biesinger (don't email me, ping me on IRC)]

*** Bug 241427 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3

[Xavier MOUTON-DUBOSC]

Well, longer you will waiting for correcting this, harder it will be possible.
And when Microsoft will start promoting XAML, Moz will be out.

For creating virtual listing, web applications,.... we should have possibility
onto the server-side to know if we can switch in xul with another method than
guessing, or any ugly manners. Just think about websites using flash...

After that, rewriting by example virtual listing extension for apache will be
faster, more user-friendly and more convincing for moz.

Comment 4

[Brendan Eich [:brendan]]

XAML has nothing to do with this. Accept: as content negotiation header, with
exhaustive list of MIME types supported, is a complete failure.  We should not
bloat our Accept: headers to include XUL's vendor MIME type.

/be

Comment 5

[benc]

V/WONTFIX

Comment 6

[Xavier MOUTON-DUBOSC]

And if, in a near future, another rendering motor like KHTML or Opera, will
accept XUL ? How to be sure ? guessing via user-agent or by a javascript
response is, imho, too much dirty method.

or creating a shorter type mime for .xul ?