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

Re: new editorial issue RANGE_WITH_CONTENTCODING

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 15:30:13 -0800
To: Graham Klyne <GK@acm.org>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9711161543.aa28525@paris.ics.uci.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4681
>>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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:21 UTC