W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Any objections to "Accept-encoding: gzip, *;q=0"?

From: Scott Lawrence <lawrence@agranat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:46:03 -0400
Message-Id: <199707221246.IAA16422@devnix.agranat.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3847

>>>>> "JM" == Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com> writes:

JM> 	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/#CONTENT-ENCODING

JM> has been assigned to myself and Henrik for resolution.  We're pretty
JM> close to solving most of it, except for a seemingly minor concern:
JM> How does a client say "don't send me the 'identity' encoding"?

  I don't think this is a serious enough concern to merit doing
  anything at all.  If this is not possible that's just fine.

  That having been said, the q-value solution would seem the best to
  me.  I prefer not to use '*' for this, so my choice from your
  alternatives would be:

JM>   (c)	Accept-Encoding: gzip, compress, identity;q=0.0

  Our server doesn't currently do anything with Accept-Encoding (our
  customers generally don't have the storage to devote to storing
  multiple encodings, and don't want the CPU spending time creating
  them) so we have no backward compatibility issue.

Scott Lawrence           EmWeb Embedded Server       <lawrence@agranat.com>
Agranat Systems, Inc.        Engineering            http://www.agranat.com/
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 1997 05:57:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC