- From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:15:22 -0500
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> [...]
> 3. The "identity" transfer-coding is always acceptable, unless specifically
> refused because the Accept-TE field includes "identity;q=0", or because the
> field includes "*;q=0" and does not explictly include the "identity"
> transfer-coding. If the Accept-TE field-value is empty, then only the
> "identity" encoding is acceptable.
>
> 4. The "chunked" transfer-coding is always acceptable. The Trailer header
> field (section 14.Y) can be used to indicate the set of header fields
> included in the trailer.
>
> If an Accept-TE field is present in a request, and if a server cannot send
> a response which is acceptable according to the Accept-TE header, then the
> server SHOULD send an error response with the 406 (Not Acceptable) status
> code.
>
> If no Accept-TE field is present, the sender MAY assume that the recipient
> will accept the "identity" and "chunked" transfer-codings.
> [...]
Sorry, but I find these paragraphs very confusing and, possibly,
contradictory. According to (3), an empty Accept-TE allows only
"identity". According to (4), "chunked" is always acceptable. Which is
right?
Also, in these (earlier) examples of Accept-TE:
Accept-TE: deflate
Accept-TE:
Accept-TE: chunk=1.0; deflate=0.5
Is "chunk" a hypothetical new TE, or is it a misspelling of "chunked",
in which case it's invalid (because "chunked" can't take a parameter)?
And, syntactically don't those have to be
Accept-TE: chunk;q=1.0; deflate;q=0.5
?
Dave Kristol
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 13:19:30 UTC