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

Re: Issue: TRAILER_FIELDS and Transfer Encodings once again

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:32:25 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4745
At 16:15 11/19/97 -0500, Dave Kristol wrote:

Hi Dave,

>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

They are indeed - must have been eating something bad. I think this is better:

3. The "identity" transfer-coding is always acceptable, unless specifically
refused because the Accept-TE field includes "identity;q=0". 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

4. If the Accept-TE field-value is empty, only the "identity" and the
"chunked" transfer-codings are acceptable.

>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

Sorry, it should have been

        Accept-TE: chunked; deflate;q=0.5

meaning that the client accepts any allowed header to occur in the trailer
of a chunked encoded message and is somewhat happy to accept deflate.


Henrik Frystyk Nielsen,
World Wide Web Consortium
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 1997 13:38:25 UTC

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