Content encoding problem...

I agree that Transfer-Encoding is the correct solution. 
What is the problem with using "deflate" as a transfer coding? 
 
** Reply to note from jg@zorch.w3.org Fri, 14 Feb 97 15:34:53 -0500 
> ------- Message 3 
> To:  jg@zorch.w3.org 
> Cc:  Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>, frystyk@w3.org, abaird@w3.org, 
>             eric@w3.org, howcome@w3.org, chris@w3.org 
> Subject:  Re: Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG  
> Date:  Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:11:45 -0800 
> From:  "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU> 
>    
> >The best fix for caches is the obvious one: content coding is a hop-by-hop header 
> >that should be completely transparent to the next hop; if you store something in a cache 
> >compressed, you should still be obligated to uncompress it to provide it to the next 
> >hop unless the next hop is willing to accept it in the form indicated. 
>    
> That is what Transfer-Encoding is for -- it is intended to be used for 
> hop-by-hop compression.  Content-Encoding is end-to-end because it screws 
> up integrity checks if it is removed by a hop. 
>    
> ......Roy 
>    
> ------- Message 4 
>    
> To:  "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU> 
> Cc:  Jeffrey Mogul    <mogul@pa.dec.com>, frystyk@w3.org, abaird@w3.org, 
>             eric@w3.org, howcome@w3.org, chris@w3.org, jg 
> Subject:  Re: Network Performance Effects of HTTP/1.1, CSS1, and PNG  
> Date:  Mon, 10 Feb 97 16:35:12 -0500 
> From:  jg 
>    
> Yeah, except the only transfer encoding defined is "chunked".  gzip, compress and 
> deflate are all defined as content codings, not transfer codings.... 
> 			- Jim 
>    
> ------- End of Forwarded Messages 
>    
 

Regards, 
Richard L. Gray 
Internet Connection Server Development

Received on Monday, 17 February 1997 13:38:36 UTC