Talk:Content negotiation

Copyright Status
However - Apache's license is explicit in stating that content may be redistributed, modified, etc. (similar to GFDL), so long as we mention that some content may come from Apache's original documentation. I'm wondering how this can be a copyright infringement on a clearly open, uncopyrighted document with a generally GFDL/GPL compatible license. Administrators: Please consider this, or remove the CopyVio tag. Thanks, Nimur 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not the original submitter of the content in question.
 * I haven't even checked whether the material does copy from Apache's documentation.


 * I think the key is this: "so long as we mention that some content may come from Apache's original documentation." The original submitter didn't bother to do that. It *is* a copyvio if it doesn't comply with the license. I actually don't see any copyright or licensing information at all on the page from which the content was copied. I guess what we need is this: (1) If the page from which the content was copied is under the Apache license, we need someone to find where it says that. (2) We then need to comply with the license, which we aren't currently doing. --24.52.254.62 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like these issues have been addressed; therefore I'm removing the strikethrough. Verisimilus  T  19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Update 15-year old info
>> One classical use of this mechanism is to serve an image in GIF or PNG format, so that a browser that cannot display PNG images (e.g. MS Internet Explorer 4) will be served the GIF version.

What are we, in 1997? These days SVGs are are used instead of PNGs for IE8+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.1.253 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

==== wiki plagiarizing apache https://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/content-negotiation.html yay wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.3.245 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)