Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

>>The problem is that people keep trying to wedge both into content-coding
>>instead of just defining on-the-fly compression with Transfer-Encoding.
>
>I am *assuming* that your reference to 'transfer-encoding' maps to MIME
>'content-transfer-encoding'.  If this assumption is false, please ignore
>this comment...

It is false.

>The MIME specification STRONGLY discourages (its capitals) the creation of
>new content-transfer-encoding values.  I would think that this would
>encourage designers to try and shoehorn transfer-encoding semantics into
>content-coding headers.

That is why we now have Transfer-Encoding and do not allow
Content-Transfer-Encoding at all.  Likewise, the reason we have
Content-Encoding is because MIME did not provide for declaring the
types of layered encodings.  We would have been better off with a
hierarchical Content-Type.

....Roy

Received on Sunday, 16 November 1997 15:47:39 UTC