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: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@appliedtheory.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 09:24:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199707221324.JAA11987@pat.appliedtheory.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: mogul@pa.dec.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3848
In a previous episode Koen Holtman said...
:: Jeffrey Mogul:
:: >
:: [...]
:: >  (a)	Accept-Encoding: gzip, compress, no-identity
:: >		/* an explicit "no identity-encoding wanted" token */
:: I like (a) best.  The trouble with adding q values to this header is
:: that it makes selecting the `best' encoding much more complicated
:: (decoding short floats and finding the highest one is too complicated
:: to do in a simple shell script, for example), and this would
:: discourage the deployment of servers which know about encodings.

I find this a very persuasive argument.. Content Encodings are
something we are intending to deal with aggressively in current and
upcoming server extension projects.. (CGI, fast CGI, nsapi,
whatever..) If this is the type of functionality that's going to be
handled by a lot of different applications (as opposed to a handful of
base web servers) simplicity is paramount... that unfortunately means
no q values.

Received on Tuesday, 22 July 1997 06:31:57 UTC

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