Re: CONTENT-ENCODING: FIXED revised proposed wording

Jeffrey Mogul:
>

Some nitpicks:

>	(1) If the content-coding is one of the content-codings listed
>	in the Accept-Encoding field, then it is acceptable. (Note that,
>	as defined in section 3.9, a qvalue of 0 means "not acceptable".)

This is slightly self-contradictory.

>	(2) The special "*" symbol in an Accept-Encoding field matches
>	any available content-coding.

..except those listed explicitly in the header field.


>    If no Accept-Encoding field is present in a request, the server MAY
>    assume that the client will accept any content coding.  In this
>    case, if "identity" is one of the available content-codings, then
>    the server SHOULD use the "identity" content-coding.

This SHOULD was not present in 2068, and I don't think adding it is a
good idea.  A server which knows that a legacy client accepts an
encoding (e.g. by looking at the user-agent field) should be
encouraged to send content in this encoding.


>(4) In section 14.9 (Cache-Control), add
>                          | "no-transform"
>to the BNF for cache-request-directive.

Are we allowed to make such an addition at this point in the standards
process?


Koen.