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

Re: CONTENT-ENCODING: FIXED revised proposed wording

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:15:57 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199707241815.UAA24041@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3901
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

Received on Thursday, 24 July 1997 11:22:45 UTC

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