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

Jeffrey Mogul:
>
[...]
>Koen writes:
>    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?
>
>Well, Henrik has already promised one (right, Henrik?) and I would
>guess that he is right; adding a parameter parser for Accept-TE
>is relatively easy if you've already had to right the same parser
>for "chunked".
>
>But beyond that, if we don't add parameters NOW, we will never
>be able to do so, because then there will be an incompatibility
>with the installed base.

Let me clarify my position: I think it would be OK to add an
extensibility mechanism of the usual ;name=value type, but we should
not define lots of complicated name=value pairs right now.

>-Jeff

Koen.