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

Re: Accept-Transfer header field (was HTTP/1.1 Issues:

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:10:58 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199711192110.WAA24250@wsooti04.win.tue.nl>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: frystyk@w3.org, 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/4742
Larry Masinter:
>"accept-" request headers are handled specially by the 'vary'
>header response. 

??  In ther last version I saw, Vary did not treat any field as

>Since this doesn't apply end-to-end and might
>be introduced by an intermediate, I don't think that it should
>be called "Accept-" anything. Roy's suggestion of making this
>an option to 'Connection' might be reasonable, but I'm suspicious
>of adding this last-minute feature into a Draft Standard.

I feel that making a clean separation between content and transfer
compression is a cleanup we should have made a long time ago, and on
that grounds I think it is reasonable to add it as a last-minute

It is not really critical whether it is called Accept- or connection:
something.  I like the connection alternative slightly better.  And no
gunky parameters about compression quality or dictionaries please --
adding these would take the whole thing way beyond a 1.1 cleanup, and
how are we ever going to claim two independent implementations for
such things if we add them?


Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 13:14:05 UTC

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